Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BREAD RATIONING (PETITIONS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: I beg to present a Petition to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. This humble Petition of the undersigned persons resident in Ruislip, Middlesex, showeth:
 That your petitioners view with grave apprehension the determination to bring into force a bread rationing scheme which is considered unnecessary and unjustified by utterances previously made by the Food Minister. Your petitioners further feel that this ultimate in rationing strikes a cruel blow at the housewives of this country and is, moreover, a very poor and untimely reward for all the suffering "——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not read out the whole Petition. He must give the heading and say what the petitioners humbly pray.

Sir W. Smithers: I am sorry—
 and devoted toil so willingly given over the past seven years.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. In view of the spate of Petitions, which are ill-founded——

Mr. Speaker: I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday that whether a Petition is ill-founded or not, the hon. Member is entitled to present it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. More seriously, Mr. Speaker, I must ask whether there is nothing in the Rules of this House, or in Erskine May, which can put a stop to this dangerous agitation——

Mr. Speaker: This House allows free speech.

Mr. Gallacher: On a further point of Order——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Gallacher: But what is going to happen if we have a hunger strike in Mayfair?

Petition to lie upon the Table.

Mr. Maude: I beg leave to present to this honourable House two Petitions from certain citizens of the loyal city of Exeter. The material allegations in the first Petition are that the bread rationing will impose unnecessary hardship, particularly on the poorer classes and the aged people, and bring an added burden to the housewife. The petitioners pray this honourable House that means be sought to alleviate the imposition of the rationing of bread, flour and confectionery at the earliest possible moment, and humbly request an assurance that all possible means of relief have been, are being and will continue to be pursued to their utmost limit; and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The second Petition is like unto it.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is there nothing that you can say in connection with these Petitions and the statements outside the House that Members who vote on this question——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now raising another point of Order——

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of Order about presenting a Petition. Any Member may present a Petition, and that is one of the historical rights of this House. It may seem a nuisance to one side or to the other, but, in spite of that, I will not give way for a moment.

Petitions to lie upon the Table.

Brigadier Low: I beg leave to present to this honourable House a Petition' signed by 11,890 housewives from all parts of Blackpool. The housewives pray that bread shall not be rationed, that there shall be no further food cuts, that the former soap ration shall be restored, and certain other things.
 Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that this honourable House will be pleased to grant them such relief as to your honourable House may seem fit.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order. Might I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Petitions at present being presented will prevent the Questions addressed to the Minister of Food from being reached today, and might I ask you to consider extending Question time on days when there are these frivolous and repetitive Petitions?

Mr. Cocks: Further to that point of Order. Could not these Petitions be taken as bread?

Mr. Speaker: There really can be no points of Order. These Petitions are correctly presented. They may be a nuisance and they may seem to hon. Members to be frivolous, but that is not the point. They are the right of hon. Members, whether they interfere with Question time or not. It is up to hon. Members, and I am going to defend their rights.

Petition to lie upon the Table.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg leave to present two Petitions, the first signed by a number of housewives in the borough of Wareham, Dorset:
 Whereas the rationing of bread inflicts a great hardship on both consumers and distributors, and will involve both wastage and shortage… wherefore your petitioners pray that the bread rationing Order be cancelled with the least possible delay.
The second Petition, signed by a large number of housewives in Portland, Dorset, makes the same statement and concludes with the prayer:
 Wherefore your petitioners pray that further cuts in foodstuffs be not proceeded with and that a public inquiry into the country's food situation be instituted without further delay. And your petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray.

Petitions to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Transport, Fringford

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Education why a child living at Hardwick has to cycle to school at Fringford, Oxfordshire, while children living nearer the school are provided with an omnibus service.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): Hardwick is not on the route of the nearest school bus service and owing to the isolated position of the village, the cost of diverting the bus through Hardwick would be considerable. The Local Education Authority do not consider that this cost should be incurred to provide motor transport for one child only.

Emergency Training, Wales

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the number of students accepted by Welsh interviewing boards for the Emergency Training Scheme; and what proportion are men.

Miss Wilkinson: One thousand, seven hundred and eighty-two candidates have been accepted by the Welsh interviewing boards. Of these, 83 per cent. are men. Many of these candidates were English Servicemen and women stationed in Wales, but I am unable to say precisely what proportion.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that these figures mean that almost 10 per cent. of the students accepted for training under the Emergency Training Scheme come from the Principality, does the Minister propose to give a greater number of colleges for Wales than has already been proposed?

Miss Wilkinson: As I said in my reply, a large number of these candidates are English Servicemen and women. Actually, rather less than 5 per cent, are Welsh, and we are planning three colleges which will represent rather more than 5 per cent. of the total number of places to be provided.

Mr. Thomas: Is it clear that these students who are accepted by Welsh inter-


viewing boards can go, and are going, to the training colleges across the border?

Miss Wilkinson: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Maintenance Grants (Emergency Training)

Mr. Heathcote Amory: asked the Minister of Education whether she will take steps to ensure the prompt and up-to-date payment of maintenance grants due to ex-Service students undergoing a teachers' training course.

Miss Wilkinson: I took steps several months ago to expedite the payments to students in emergency training colleges, and I am satisfied that these payments are now being made at the earliest possible moment.

Medical Examinations (Children)

Mr. Battley: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the necessity for obtaining comparative statistics, she will direct local education authorities to make examinations to ascertain the comparative heights and weights of schoolchildren of five to 14 years of age, as soon as possible this year and at the close of suitable periods of, say, five or 10 years.

Miss Wilkinson: The view of my medical advisers is that records of height and weight should be made of each child at least three times a year, not only from the point of view of comparative statistics but in order to watch and record the growth rate of individual children. I am afraid that this cannot be undertaken yet, because of the shortage of medical and particularly nursing staff, and, incidentally, of weighing machines. A standard medical card is, however, being prepared in the Ministry, and with it will be issued a memorandum to local education authorities on its use and on medical inspection generally, including advice about the periodic weighing and measuring of children.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Could not this work he undertaken just as well by the teachers?

Miss Wilkinson: I feel that I can hardly ask the teachers to do any more than they are doing at present.

School Meals, Manchester

Mr. W. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Education how many schoolchildren in the city of Manchester receive meals at school; and how these numbers of children compare with the figures before and during the 1939–45 war.

Miss Wilkinson: The number of children in grant-aided primary and secondary schools in Manchester who had dinner at school on the day of the return in February last was 32,313. As the answer to the second part of the Question is long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the comparable figures for the war years:


October, 1941
…
…
13,486


February, 1942
…
…
15,120


February, 1943
…
…
19,430


February, 1944
…
…
27,284


February, 1945
…
…
29,176

Comparable figures for prewar years are riot available, but it is estimated that, for public elementary schools only, the average daily number of children who received school dinners during the year 1938–39 was approximately 10,000.

" The Nation's Schools"

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that the publication called "The Nation's Schools" is still on sale in unamended form at His Majesty's Stationery Offices, Cardiff; and when she proposes to withdraw this pamphlet.

Miss Wilkinson: As I have already stated, I have given instructions that no further copies of this pamphlet should he printed when the present stocks, which are now small, have been sold.

Mr. Thomas: May we take it that this publication will be withdrawn this week from Cardiff?

Miss Wilkinson: I have repeatedly stated that I have no intention of withdrawing it. What I have said is that this pamphlet is now out of date, that it does not represent the views of the present Government in one or two respects, and new pamphlets are in course of publication.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand the Minister to say that, although the pamphlet does not represent her point of view, she wants it to be sold?

Miss Wilkinson: We are dealing with a pamphlet a very large proportion of which is a mere statement of fact, and one cannot withdraw statements of fact. [Laughter.] No, but one can express regret for having stated them. There are certain expressions of opinion in that pamphlet, and I have stated categorically that those expressions of opinion do not represent the views of the present Government.

Forces Preliminary Examination (Universities)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Education which universities accept the Forces Preliminary Examination in lieu of their ordinary entrance examinations.

Miss Wilkinson: I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the universities and university colleges which accept the Forces Preliminary Examination as prima facie evidence of a candidate's eligibility to be considered for admission.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression among members of the Forces, arising from the prospectus of examinations issued by the Civil Service Commission, that the purpose of this examination is to take the place of the ordinary entrance examination for the universities; and that some universities are now refusing to accept candidates on the grounds that they do not regard that examination as any longer acceptable?

Miss Wilkinson: I have no control over what the universities do or do not accept as eligibility for admission. I have said I will send my hon. Friend a list of those that do.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for War told me the week before last that the results of those examinations which were held in February are only just known, and that the universities are pretty well full up, could my right hon. Friend reconsider this question; and could she state how many people are involved, because they do think they are entitled to go to a university?

Miss Wilkinson: I do not think I quite see the relevance of that supplementary question in connection with my answer. There is a list of universities and

colleges which do accept these preliminary examinations. As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the Ministry of Education has no control over what the universities will or will not accept.

Mr. Greenwood: If the list submitted by my right hon. Friend does not coincide with the list given in the prospectus which I have in mind, will she take steps, in concert with the Civil Service Commission, to rectify the impression that is being given?

Miss Wilkinson: I think my hon. Friend had better see the list first. If he then has any question to raise on it I shall be delighted to discuss it with him.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Education whether she will abolish all forms of corporal punishment in all schools under her jurisdiction for both boys and girls.

Miss Wilkinson: The question of corporal punishment is generally left to the discretion of school authorities. I believe this discretion to be wisely exercised and, apart from what is said in the "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers," I see no cause for general directions on the point. There has been a welcome decrease in the infliction of corporal punishment as a means of maintaining discipline in schools, and I am confident that this will continue.

Mr. Freeman: Does not my right hon. Friend consider it is an anachronism that children are kept disciplined as a result of force and fear, and does she not consider it should be abolished?

Miss Wilkinson: I think my hon. Friend has not kept in touch with the conditions of discipline, and of the changed conception of discipline which has taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Letter Collection and Delivery

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why he proposes to withdraw the second delivery of letters at it 11 a.m. in the Lyonshall Kington, Herefordshire, district, seeing that this service was in operation both prewar and during the war period.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): As from the 30th June an afternoon delivery beginning about 2.30 p.m. has been restored in the Lyonshall area. A house to house delivery has never been made in this area at 11 a.m., but I presume the hon. Member refers to the morning caller's delivery, which was introduced as a wartime measure and has now, on the introduction of the afternoon delivery, been withdrawn.

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will give an assurance that the hours of collection and delivery of letters will be determined solely by the convenience of the public.

Mr. Burke: My noble Friend's policy is, with due regard to the wider interests of the community, to strike a fair balance between the convenience of the public and the interests of the postal staff.

Mr. Strauss: Is there not a very obvious distinction between the question of hours and wages, on which the union is very properly consulted, and the question of what facilities should or should not be given to the public, on which the public alone and the Government are concerned?

Mr. Burke: Questions of the times of delivery involve the hours of the staff.

Telephone Service

Sir G. Fox: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to improve the telephone lines in the neighbourhood of Finmere exchange, Oxfordshire, and, in particular, Featherbed Lane, where the trees are continually causing interruption in the service, and subscribers are thereby unable to use the telephone.

Mr. Burke: Conditions in the Finmere exchange area are similar to those in many other rural districts where overhead telephone wires are used. These are sometimes damaged during high winds, but I regret that in present circumstances it is not possible to contemplate any general modification of our methods of supplying telephone service in these districts. Damage in Featherbed Lane appears to have been exceptionally frequent recently, and I will see what can be done there to reduce the liability of interruption of service as soon as labour is available.

Sir G. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these subscribers are without the use of the telephone for about 25 per cent. of the year; and will he consider allowing a rebate, as they cannot use the telephone during that time?

Mr. Burke: They are without it for only short periods of very inclement weather, and there are only four of them altogether.

Mr. Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new telephone instruments have been installed in Aberdeenshire during the last six months; and how many would-be subscribers in Aberdeenshire are on the waiting list at the present time.

Mr. Burke: In Aberdeenshire 1,551 applicants have been given telephone service during the past six months, and there are at present 1,870 outstanding applications.

Mr. Spence: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to accelerate the rate of supply so that we can have these subscribers fitted out with instruments by the end of the year?

Mr. Burke: Yes, there is a general acceleration. While, on the face of it, it would take another six months to clear off those at present outstanding, every time we put in a new telephone we are liable to get another two applications.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman saw how many of those two classes of figures apply to the City of Aberdeen?

Mr. Burke: This is about the county.

Air Mail (Newspapers)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office is charging 10s. air mail postage on a single copy of a Croydon weekly newspaper addressed to a member of His Majesty's Forces in Burma; and whether he will reduce this charge to a reasonable amount.

Mr. Burke: Newspapers can be sent by air to the Forces in Burma at the rates applicable to the air conveyance of letters, namely, 1½d. up to one ounce, and, for heavier letters, 6d. for the first 1½oz, and 6d. for each succeeding half-ounce. A charge of as much as 10s.


would thus be appropriate to a packet weighing 11 ounces. This seems very high for a single copy of a newspaper at the present time and the charge may have been wrongly assessed. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the packet, including the weight, the address, and the office of posting, I will gladly have inquiry made.

Mail Service, U.S.S.R.

Major Vernon: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why postal communication with the U.S.S.R. is so slow.

Mr. Burke: The mail service to the U.S.S.R. is, so far as I am aware, reasonably satisfactory. Air and surface mails are despatched from this country daily via Prague and Berlin respectively and should occupy about four and seven days in transmission to Moscow. The incoming surface mails from the U.S.S.R. take about seven days to reach this country. No inward air mails have been received from the U.S.S.R. since the Berlin route was adopted for surface mails in April last, but proposals have been made to the U.S.S.R. postal authorities for the exchange of air mails via Berlin. Their reply is awaited.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Has the hon. Gentleman received any complaints regarding this matter from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?

Mr. Speaker: That is another matter.

Mr. Gallacher: They call me on the telephone.

Football Pools Circulars

Mr. Nally: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what special or other facilities are provided by his Department for the posting of circulars and other material from football pool firms; what is the number of Post Office staff engaged wholly or largely in dealing with packages posted by such firms; and whether he is satisfied, in view of the present labour shortage, that such staff could not be more usefully employed.

Mr. Burke: No special facilities are provided which are not available to other equally large users of the post. I regret it is not possible to segregate staff time engaged in handling pool correspondence; the time so occupied is expected to assist

materially in promoting economical staffing and in improving the duties of the Post Office delivery staff in connection with the postwar postal services now in course of introduction.

Mr. Nally: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to circularising all their prewar clients, the pools are today sending out hundreds of thousands of packets of circulars to people who have neither asked for them nor want them, including my wife, and can we have his most specific assurance that in no circumstances, in view of the present staff shortage, will Post Office workers be diverted from essential work to handle these mountains of football pools?

Mr. Burke: They are not. The work is very carefully arranged. What happens is that in the time between deliveries, when the staff might otherwise be unoccupied, they are economically employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Ex-Enemy Wavelengths

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many enemy wavelengths became available for use by the liberating Powers after the liberation of Germany and Austria; to which nations they have been provisionally allocated pending a general revision of the Lucerne Plan- and for what purpose any wavelengths allocated to this country are being used.

Mr. Collins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make representations under the Lucerne Agreement for the temporary or permanent acquisition of ex-enemy medium wavelengths not at present in use, so that listeners in the South-West may be provided with a reasonable wireless service.

Mr. Burke: Fourteen wavelengths were allocated to Germany and four to Austria under the Lucerne Convention. They are all still in use in those countries for broadcasting by the occupying powers to the inhabitants, displaced persons, and the occupying troops, with the exception of one which is used to carry German broadcasts from Moscow. There are thus no ex-enemy medium wavelengths not at present in use which could be used for listeners in the South-West.

Mr. Greenwood: Could my hon. Friend assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not agree to the allocation of these wavelengths to other Powers, pending any general revision of the Lucerne Agreement?

Mr. Burke: Until a new revision takes place the Lucerne Agreement stands.

Major Bruce: Will my hon. Friend explain why 14 wavelengths are in use in Germany at the present time? Would it not be possible for some to be used by this country?

Mr. Burke: Fourteen wavelengths were allocated under the Convention. Germany is a larger country than this, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will consider the proportion of wavelengths in this country and those in a country the size of Germany he will perhaps see the reason.

Regional Amalgamation

Mr. Awbery: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will hold an inquiry in Bristol or the West of England into the merging of the Midland and West Regional services of the B.B.C. before taking definite action; and if he is satisfied that Birmingham is the most suitable place for H.Q. in the event of this merging taking place, seeing that the reception in the west is likely to be adversely affected by such a change.

Mr. Burke: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The location of the headquarters of the amalgamated region is a matter for the B.B.C., who, I understand, consider that Birmingham is the most advantageous centre for the administrative headquarters. Offices and studios will, however, be maintained in Bristol, and there will be a Bristol director. The location of the headquarters will not affect reception conditions in the West of England.

Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disquiet that has been caused in the West of England by the proposed change, and that people think that an inquiry would cause him to change his opinion?

Mr. Burke: I am aware of the feeling about it, and I have a good deal of sympathy with it, and in so far as it is possible for us to improve reception technically, we will do all that we can.

Mr. Grimston: Bearing in mind the strong feeling aroused in the West of England over this decision, is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that every possible avenue has been explored?

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, I am perfectly satisfied, having regard to the requirements of the whole of the country and the allocation of our wavelengths, that everything possible has been done in the circumstances.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has my hon. Friend thought of the possibility of getting Northern Ireland merged in Eire as an alternative?

Sir Ronald Ross: rose——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Cannot the hon. Gentleman recover for the West of England programme one of the wavelengths he has apparently allocated to Germany?

Mr. Burke: We have not given any wavelengths to Germany; the noble Lord is mistaken. What we have done is to keep for ourselves two medium wavelengths for use in Europe.

Sir R. Ross: rose——

Mr. Speaker: This Question, after all, dealt with Western England and not with Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Ministry Staff (Recruitment)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps have now been taken to ensure the employment, on conditions not less favourable than those which previously obtained, of individuals who were concerned in the operation of workmen's compensation with ordinary insurance companies.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I cannot add to the statements regarding the recruitment of the Ministry's staff made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself during the Committee stage of the Industrial Injuries Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister give an assurance to the House now that no single employee will lose as a result of the operation of this Act?

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot give any such undertaking. The undertaking I gave was that we would recruit, from both the employers' and trade unions' side, suitable persons to administer the new scheme.

Sickness Benefits

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is yet in a position to announce the appointed day on which increased sickness benefits will be payable under the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I cannot at present add to what I said on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the people who are trying to manage on the existing sickness benefit rate are really desperate, and will he give them an assurance that they will stand high on his list when he comes to apply the different parts of his insurance scheme?

Mr. Griffiths: I have received representations on behalf of sick persons, and on behalf of others too, to bring special parts of the new Bill into operation as soon as possible, but I would warn my hon. Friends that if we were to attempt to introduce this legislation piecemeal it would delay the coming into operation of the full scheme, and I think that would be a mistake from everybody's point of view.

Workmen's Compensation

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he intends to renew the Workmen's Compensation (Temporary Increases) Act, 1943, which expires on 31st December of this year.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is provision to this effect in Clause 88 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill now before Parliament.

Family Allowances (Widows)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has considered the communication concerning family allowances paid to widows from the Cardiff District Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union; and whether he is able to meet the request made in this correspondence.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This letter raised a paint with regard to the net increase in the payments to widows with young children when family allowances begin to be paid. This is governed by statute and I have no power to alter it.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand then that this anomaly exists, that a widow will lose the benefit of the family allowance while it will go to the family which has an income from the wage earner?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, that is part of the Bill. My hon. Friend will know that when the full scheme comes into operation there will be other provisions for widows and children.

Pensions Order Books (Renewal)

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of delays in forwarding new old age pension order books to the Post Office for pensioners before the time of expiry of the old one; and why, despite the assurances to the contrary, neither the original new order book nor a duplicate which was promised have reached the local post office for a pensioner, particulars of whom have been sent to him, despite the fact that the pensioner's old book expired on 13th June.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In general, the renewal of pension order books, averaging nearly 80,000 each week, is carried out without a hitch. In the particular case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers a book containing orders available from 2oth June was issued to the proper Post Office on 24th May. As the book could not be found on 10th June when the first payment from it was due, the Post Office made an emergency payment of pension for that week. A duplicate order book was issued to the Post Office on 5th July in response to letters from the pensioner, and this book is now in his possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of persons now undergoing sentences of imprisonment, indicating penal servitude as a separate item; what is the present accommodation


for these prisoners; how far are these numbers in excess of that for which prison buildings were designed; and what steps it is intended to take to provide for these abnormal number of persons.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide extra accommodation for the bakers?

Mr. Ede: I understand we can accommodate them.

Following is the answer:

On 18th June there were in local prisons and Borstal reception centres 11,327 men and 915 women, convicted and unconvicted. There is cell accommodation in these prisons and centres for 10,594 men and 1,034 women, and hutted accommodation in occupation by 680 men. These figures include 770 young men and 6o young women who were awaiting removal to Borstal institutions and 1,380 men and 65 women serving sentences of penal servitude. On the same date there were in the convict prisons, with accommodation for 1,580 men and 70 women, 1,174 men and 53 women serving sentences of penal servitude.

In order to meet the need for additional accommodation, Pentonville Prison has been reopened, and the prisons at Northallerton, Reading, and Canterbury will be reopened shortly. A hutted camp has also been taken over for the star class convicts now at Camp Hill prison, to enable that establishment to revert to its former use as a Borstal institution. Negotiations are also proceeding for the acquisition of a mansion and a hutted camp to serve as regional training prisons for the Midland and South-West regions. I hope that when all this accommodation is in use there will be adequate accommodation available for at least the present level of prison population.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youths undergoing training in Borstal establishments have escaped from custody during the past six months; how many have, after release from these establishments, been sentenced to various

terms of imprisonment during the same period; and to what extent recent attempts to find adequate and suitable accommodation have been carried out.

Mr. Ede: From 1st January to 30th June, 1946, 299 youths escaped from custody in Borstal institutions of whom all but 19 have been recaptured up to date. During the same period 771 persons whose previous sentence was a sentence of Borstal detention were sentenced to imprisonment. Since 1st January two additional Borstal institutions have been opened, two more will be opened next month, and premises for two more will, it is hoped, be ready for use in the near future. In addition, a Borstal reception centre has been opened in new premises, and Northallerton Prison is to be used for collecting boys awaiting removal to a reception centre.

Sir R. Glyn: As the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House some time ago that he was dissatisfied with present arrangements, and the record he has just recited shows that the situation is not satisfactory, can he assure the House that nothing will be done to prevent the proper treatment of these youths at a Borstal institution as originally laid down, and that they will not be put into criminal gaols?

Mr. Ede: I am doing all I can, and the latter part of the answer I read gave some indication of what is being done to improve the unsatisfactory position, which is already less unsatisfactory than it was. I hope that when the full programme I have described to the House is completed, the desires of us all for the proper treatment of these lads will be realised.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In order to diminish overcrowding in prisons and in Borstal institutions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider calling in aid some of the large buildings which were built for war purposes and which are now redundant?

Mr. Ede: I am in course of adapting some of those buildings.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.F.S. (SURPLUS BUILDINGS AND MATERIALS)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what


arrangements are being made for the release of surplus N.F.S. buildings, materials, equipment, etc.

Mr. Ede: It is the general practice to give up possession of National Fire Service buildings when they are no longer wanted for service or other Governmental purposes. As regards surplus materials and equipment, local authorities have been allowed to acquire what they wanted, and the rest is being dealt with under the procedure for disposing of surplus Government stores set out in the White Paper of July, 1944. Large numbers of surplus vehicles have also been sold by public auction.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether surplus N.F.S. buildings will be offered to local authorities for temporary housing accommodation?

Mr. Ede: It will all depend upon the original ownership of the buildings. If the building was a local authority building, it goes back; but if it belongs to a private individual, it may very well be that he has first claim to it.

Mr. Lipson: I am referring to buildings built for the N.F.S. and taken over.

Mr. Ede: If they are reported as redundant I hope they will, in the majority of cases, go to local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

American Aircraft Technician

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an American, required by a British firm to train aircraft crews in the operation of apparatus used in survey work for Government Departments and local authorities, has been trying for nearly two months to get permission to remain in this country; and whether, to avoid further delay in the preparation of maps required for housing and town planning, he will now give a decision.

Mr. Ede: The first application to my Department in this matter was dated 6th June. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that British subjects, with specialised qualifications in photogrammetry, including ex-members of the R.A.F., are available

for this type of employment, and that further men with these qualifications are expected to register on the Technical and Scientific Register as they become demobilised. In the circumstances, I regret that permission cannot be given for this American to enter this employment.

Mr. Keeling: The 6th June being six weeks ago, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these long drawn out delays are holding up the work of the country? Could he not in some cases get the officials concerned to settle the matter round the table, instead of firing minutes at one another?

Mr. Ede: The first application was received on 6th June——

Mr. Keeling: Six weeks ago.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman put his Question down on the first occasion on 28th June for answer a fortnight ago. The matter has been disposed of.

Naturalisation

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of applicants who have been granted naturalisation since the revised regulation was issued, giving the number separately for those who have served in His Majesty's Forces and those who have been granted priority owing to special services rendered; the total number of applications now pending; and how many of these are in a priority category.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates of naturalisation have been issued this year; how many applications have been received each year since 1939; and when he anticipates being able to deal with all those who applied before the war.

Mr. Ede: I have granted 1,123 certificates of naturalisation this year up to 30th June. The machinery for dealing with applications by persons who have served in His Majesty's Forces, and those who claim priority on the ground of the value of their work to the nation, is only just beginning to produce results, and it will be some time before I shall be able to give figures illustrative of the speed at which the machine is working.
The total number of outstanding applications of all categories is over 24,000, of which over 6,000 are in priority categories and over 2,000 were submitted before the war. Prewar applications are being considered, concurrently with priority applications, as rapidly as the staff position allows, but it is too early to say when they will all be dealt with. I am circulating the remaining figures asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a few applications referring to elderly people who are very distinguished in their particular walks of life, and whose naturalisation would do credit to this country? Would he put them in a special category?

Mr. Ede: I do try to have regard to the individual claims, but with so large a number as 24,000 I have to be very careful, lest, by granting a whole number of priorities, I really cancel all the priorities out.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask whether merchant seamen are getting priority, because there is a large number at Cardiff clocks, and I understand that a large number have not yet received their certificates?

Mr. Ede: If a merchant seaman is recommended to me specially by the appropriate Government Department, he gets priority in the same way as does any other skilled worker.

Following are the figures:.


Applications for naturalization


Year

Number


1940
…
2,345


1941
…
564


1942
…
479


1943
…
1,160


1944
…
2,349


1945
…
5,225


1946 (to 3oth Tune)
…
10,658




22,780

Distressed Relatives Scheme

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the British passport control officer in Vienna has declined to authorise a visa to Mr. Johann and Mrs. Karoline Gräbner, 5, Margaretenstrasse, Vienna, for the purpose of visiting their son in this country

under the Distressed Relatives in Europe Scheme; and if he will reconsider the application with a view to the visa being granted to Mrs. Gräbner.

Mr. Ede: The distressed relatives scheme applies to cases where a man and wife living together abroad are unable to look after and support one another, and are in special need of filial care. These persons are not infirm, and they have a married daughter and, between them, three brothers and three sisters in Austria. They have not suffered from Nazi oppression, and there is no reason to distinguish them from numerous other enemy nationals whose circumstances are similar. I regret that they cannot be regarded as having a special claim to come to this country for protection and help.

Mr. Yates: Does the Secretary of State in such cases consider it fair that poor people in this country, like this son, should have to get a certificate from a Commissioner of Oaths, for which they have to pay a guinea; and that the parents have to get a certificate abroad from a doctor, which also costs them their last money? Does he think this quite fair?

Mr. Ede: The list of categories of persons I was willing to consider was read out in this House, has been published, and is generally available; and if people who are clearly not within the categories put forward claims, I really cannot be held responsible for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARRESTED PERSONS (PROPERTY)

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there are cases where, on arrest, property belonging to accused persons is taken from them by the police without a receipt being given; and whether he will take steps to see a uniform practice is adopted and such acknowledgment made.

Mr. Ede: For many years the practice in the Metropolitan Police District has been for details of property taken from an accused person by the police on arrest to be entered on the charge sheet and for the property itself to be secured and marked by the station officer. I know of no complaints having been made, but it


is, of course, the desire of the Commissioner and of myself that there should be full safeguards, and if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case of difficulty which has come to his notice, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Weitzman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as the details are entered on the charge sheet, the record in regard to the property remains with the police, and that if the accused person dies, or anything happens in regard to him, there is no record of the property taken from him? Does he not think it advisable that when property is taken from an accused person a receipt should be given?

Mr. Ede: I am looking into the matter to see whether this could be made more efficient, but I would point out that a substantial number of people, who are in the position of having their property taken from them at police stations, are not always, at that time, in a condition to appreciate whether the receipt is accurate or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESERTED WIVES, SCOTLAND (MAINTENANCE)

Lord John Hope: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider amending the present law so that a deserted wife who resides in Scotland may not be prevented from suing for maintenance because her husband resides in England.

Mr. Ede: I agree that amendment of the existing law is desirable, but I regret that, in view of the complexity of the subject, and the many other demands on the Government's legislative programme, I cannot hold out any hope of legislation at the present time.

Lord John Hope: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, may I ask if this would not be a good time for helpful legislation?

Mr. Cocks: Is it possible for a deserted wife in England to claim maintenance from her husband in Scotland, or is there no hope in that case?

Mr. Ede: There is a case for reciprocity in this matter, which I am examining with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADOPTED CHILDREN (INTESTACY)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that adopted sons have made allotments to their adopted mothers and, in certain cases, these mothers have banked money in their adopted sons names in order to have a nest egg for them; that if the adopted son is an orphan and has been killed in action without having made a will his estate becomes the property of the Crown; and whether, in these circumstances, he will introduce legislation to allow the adopted parents to be considered as next-of-kin with regard to the estate.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 4th July, and I would remind him that under Section 46 (1) (vi) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, the Crown has power in cases of intestacy to provide for dependants, whether they are kindred or not of the intestate, and I understand that this power can be exercised in favour of adoptive parents.

Mr. Marshall: If I send a case to the right hon. Gentleman will he give it sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Ede: I will, in so far as it is within my jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL POOLS

Mr. Nally: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation imposing a legal obligation upon football pool proprietors and firms to pay out a stipulated percentage of their total receipts to clientele returning correct results; or what other action he proposes to safeguard the interests of the large section of the public participating in football pools.

Mr. Ede: As I told my hon. Friend in reply to his Question on 13th March, I shall be glad if he will let me have any information which supports his suggestion that a large proportion of the receipts of some of the pools is not returned to the public in winnings.

Mr. Nally: Is the Home Secretary aware that I and a number of friends are collecting some evidence, and that meantime


it remains a fact that a gambler on football pools has no protection whatever that the total amount accruing into a pool will be paid back to those investing in it?

Mr. Ede: I shall be very pleased to receive the evidence when it has been collected, and then to consider whether any action should be taken.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that a considerable section of sensible opinion in the country would like to see legislation banning football pools altogether?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEUROSIS CASES (MENTAL INSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Frank Anderson: asked the Minister of Pensions why men who are suffering from neurosis trouble are sent to mental institutions and placed among patients who are considered to be other than neurotic cases; if he is aware that in two recent cases men who have been sent by his Department have applied to leave the institution as it was found that their condition was worsening considerably having regard to their surroundings; and what he is prepared to do to obviate this position in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): It is not the practice of my Department to send patients suffering from neurosis to mental hospitals for treatment, unless they develop mental symptoms which make treatment in a mental hospital necessary. Neurosis cases needing in-patient treatment are recommended by my Department for admission to E.M.S. neurosis centres under arrangements made with the Ministry of Health, but exceptionally when it is certified by a psychiatrist that a patient is unsuitable for such a centre on account of his mental symptoms, he may be advised to enter a mental hospital as a voluntary patient.
Both pensioners referred to were admitted to a mental hospital in May last as voluntary patients. In neither case did the man make application to my Department for treatment, nor were the arrangements for admission made by my Department. A notification in one case was not received until the course of treatment had been terminated, and in the other case the treatment already arranged was ap-

proved by my medical officers for the purpose of payment of treatment allowances and the cost of treatment. I am making further inquiry about the two cases and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. If my inquiries indicate that the existing arrangements require modification, I will go into the matter.

Mr. Anderson: What arrangements are made before ex-Servicemen are sent to these institutions? Are the medical advisers satisfied that they are not placed with those who are insane? Are they satisfied that the institutions to which they are being sent at the present time can properly cater for them?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Sir, we are so satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the precise responsibility of each ministerial department for the housing policy of the Government; in what way their various functions are coordinated; and how the conclusions of the separate Departments, when in conflict, are resolved.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are responsible for housing policy, including the design of houses, in England and Wales, and Scotland, respectively. The Minister of Works has a general responsibility for the organisation and efficiency of the building industry as a whole, and advises on questions of building technique. He is responsible for erecting temporary houses, and for estimating the total requirements of building materials and components. He is also production authority for certain of the main building materials and components. The Minister of Supply is production authority for materials and components falling within the scope of the general engineering industry. The President of the Board of Trade and Minister of Transport are production authorities for certain other materials. Coordination is secured by regular meetings of the Ministers concerned under the chairmanship of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Sparks: In view of the experience already gained in coordinating the housing functions of the separate Ministries, can the Prime Minister hold out any prospect of evolving from this experience a single Ministerial Department?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. On the contrary, I think that anyone who examines this problem carefully will see that for a specific purpose like this it is quite impossible to pull to pieces Departments which necessarily have wider scope. It is quite a mistake to think that there is any economy in trying to lump everything on to a single Minister.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to win the last election, did not the Prime Minister specifically promise a Ministry of Housing?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: If hon. Members would not make so much noise, they would have heard that the answer was "No, Sir."

Captain Crookshank: Will the Prime Minister say, in view of all this machinery, what steps can be taken by anyone in order to get a house?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think we are all familiar with that. I should have thought that it was common ground among Members on all sides of the House that no one expected that the entire housing deficiency resulting from the destruction of five years of war could possibly be overtaken in 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission Service

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the conditions prevailing in the British Zone in Germany, he will introduce a long-term British civil service there in substitution for the short-term service now in operation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I have been asked to reply. The Chancellor of the Duchy is considering this question.

47. Mr. Rees - Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will establish in the British Zone in Germany a Whitley Council to

which relevant matters affecting the British personnel of the Control Commission may be referred.

Mr. McNeil: A scheme for the introduction of Whitley machinery is in preparation.

Rations

Mr. Butcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what rations are received by unemployed displaced persons in U.N.R.R.A. camps in the British Zone in Germany; and how these compare with the rations received by the working German population.

Mr. McNeil: Displaced persons who are not working have been receiving 1,840 calories per day in rationed foods, but this is being reduced to 1,550 calories as from tomorrow. Ordinary German workers receive from 1,250 calories per day for moderate heavy work, to 2,330 calories for very heavy work.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does that ration include Red Cross parcels of which all these men have been in possession?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that is quite an accurate statement. The figures I have quoted refer to the issue of rations to these people.

Displaced Persons (Employment)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether in view of the fact that many displaced persons have been maintained for 12 months without making a contribution to their support by way of work, he will now give them the option either of returning to their countries of origin or of performing such work in Germany as they may be directed.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend is at present considering what further steps can be taken to encourage the repatriation of remaining displaced persons, and to make those meantime in Germany undertake useful work.

Sir Arthur Salter: Will the Minister prosecute more actively the search for opportunity of emigration for the very great number of displaced persons who are industrious and skilled, and cannot be thrown out into Germany or forced back into their country of origin without gross inhumanity?

Mr. McNeil: The Government have never lost sight of this second question


which the right hon. Member raises, and they will not deal with it inhumanely. Our first consideration must he to see that where repatriation can be fairly achieved no obstacle shall be placed in the way.

Prisoners of War (Repatriation)

Mr. John Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will prepare a release scheme for the repatriation of non-Nazi prisoners of war now in this country, with priority for those who were in concentration camps or prisons under the Nazis; for those who were anti-Nazis before 1945, or who refused to join the Hitler Youth for political or religious convictions; and for politically reliable qualified experts not reckoned within the Oberon Scheme.

Mr. McNeil: Arrangements are now being made for the repatriation of non-Nazi prisoners of war on a larger scale than has so far been possible under the Oberon scheme. My hon. Friend's other suggestions will be taken ito consideration in working out the details of the scheme.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister also try to obtain the release of those members of the 999 division who were recruited from concentration camps and were forced into the German Army?

Mr. McNeil: I should require to have notice of that question.

Wild Pigs (Damage)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that in British-controlled Germany wild pigs are seriously interfering with the potato crops and that the shooting of sows with young has been forbidden; and what has been done to make shooting and trapping effective.

Mr. McNeil: I am aware of this danger, but the amount of damage done is relatively small. Firearms cannot be issued freely to the German population, but in areas where wild pigs constitute a real danger the German police have been armed to shoot these vermin, including sows with young. Trapping has, so far, been found to be ineffective. It is not true that the shooting of sows with young has been forbidden.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us what figures he has about the seriousness of this threat to the food of the popula-

tion? How many thousands of lbs. of potatoes are supposed to be destroyed in this way?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry that I have not the figures, but I can assure the hon. Member that while I was there we investigated this question, and where there is any prevalency British officers as well as the German police are encouraged to shoot wild pigs.

Political Delegations (Visits)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the object of the recent visit to Germany by a delegation from the National Council of Labour; and whether visits to Germany can now be made by delegations from all political parties.

Mr. McNeil: The object of this delegation was to make contact with the Social Democrat Party and the trade unions and co-operative movements in the British zone and in Berlin. Each application will be dealt with on its merits.

Mr. Vane: Can the Under-Secretary state whether any charge is made against public funds?

Mr. McNeil: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us what constitutes "merits" on the part of any political organisation?

Mr. McNeil: Most certainly—so far as they might contribute towards rebuilding a democratic Germany.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the reply mean that some hon. Members on the other side of the House would be able to re-establish their associations with the Nazis of Germany?

German Nationals (Visits to U.K.)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the present regulations governing visits by German nationals to this country.

Mr. McNeil: Germans are allowed to leave Germany only if their journey is directly in the interests of the Allied occupation authorities, or is necessary on strong compassionate grounds. Their entry into this country is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Dr. Adolf Griemme

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at whose invitation Herr Adolf Griemme recently visited this country; what was the object and duration of the visit; and whether any limits were set to his freedom of movement.

Mr. McNeil: Dr. Griemme visited this country as a private individual at the invitation of German Educational Reconstruction, a society organised by British educationalists and anti-Nazi refugees in this country. He visited here to arrange for the return of anti-Nazi educationalists to the British zone, and to see something of British educational institutions. He was in this country for 18 days. No restrictions were imposed on his freedom of movement, but his proposed itinerary had been approved by my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can give us some indication of the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 22nd July, and Tuesday, 23rd July—Report stage of the National Health Service Bill.

Wednesday, 24th July—Supply (18th Allotted Day), Committee. Debate on the Coal Situation.

Thursday, 25th July—Supply (19th Allotted Day), Committee. Debate on the future of the Malay States until 6.30 p.m. (or earlier), and afterwards the future of the South Tyrol will be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote. At 9.30 p.m. the Committee stage of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair. Report and Third Reading of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords].

Friday, 26th July—Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill.

During the week, we shall ask the House to consider Amendments to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill which are expected to be received from another place; the Motion to approve the Biscuits (Charges) Order; complete the Debate on the three outstanding Government of Burma Orders

and make progress with the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Mr. Churchill: We, of course, realise the difficulties of the Leader of the House in tidying up the Business programme at this stage of the Session. I would like him to consider whether some more convenient time could not be found for dealing with the remaining stages of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill. It has been the subject of animated piecemeal discussion, and it is now proposed to take it at the end of a long day's Business. We have not raised difficulties with regard to a great deal of uncontroversial legislation, but, as the Minister of State will perhaps have informed the Leader of the House, this particular Bill does not come within the category of uncontroversial legislation. There is one other point which I should like to mention, if I may do so, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I do not know when it is proposed to fit the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill into our affairs. There are a number of Lords Amendments to be considered. It has not yet been fully considered in another place, and we do not know what that other place may do to it. Therefore, we cannot tell how much time we shall require for this business.

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the latter point, we shall have to see what another place does about it.

Mr. Churchill: Wait and see.

Mr. Morrison: That is a good ancient Liberal doctrine. With regard to the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill, this is one of those little Bills which Ministers describe to their colleagues as "an uncontroversial Measure," and, as such, it was embarked upon. I admit that this has proved otherwise; but as it has had a fair amount of time spent upon it since it was returned here from another place, it cannot be said that it has been inadequately discussed. Some people may think otherwise. I should have thought that it would be reasonable, after the Guillotine has fallen on the outstanding Votes, to resume this matter and dispose of what we thought was rather an innocent suggestion of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend give an indication when we are to have a Debate on Palestine?

Mr. Morrison: We anticipate that there will be a Debate on Palestine the week after next.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I ask the Leader of the House if any action is to be taken with regard to the return presented recently, dealing with the financial position of the House of Commons Members' Fund? The annual contribution of £12, deducted from every hon. Member's salary, produces a sum nearly four times that needed to cover the present expenditure, and the future liabilities on the Fund will be reduced by the passing of the National Insurance Bill. Last there was a surplus of over £6,000 and the reserve is over £40,000, £9 out of every £12 contributed is being invested by the trustees.

Mr. Morrison: I understand that this is one of the financial ventures on the part of Parliament which has turned out to be exceedingly prosperous, and, no doubt, actuarial advice will be taken. I think that it might be discussed through the usual channels, and, if there is general agreement, we may be able to meet hon. Members' wishes and deal with it expeditiously. I hope that we may be able to deal with it after the Summer Recess.

Mr. John Paton: In view of the interest which every hon. Member of the House must have in this scheme, would my right hon. Friend not consider, after the Summer Recess, allowing the House to have an opportunity to discuss it? The prosperity of the scheme may easily indicate, what I think is the truth, that the scheme is utterly inadequate for its declared purpose as it is at present run and organised. There is a very obvious reason why the whole set-up of this Fund should be reviewed by the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better stick to the Business, and not debate the Members' Insurance Fund now.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the prosperous nature of this Fund, could we not have a bonus for all-night Sittings?

Captain John Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say yet. Discussions are proceeding through the usual channels. There is certain Business which the Government feel that they must get through, and I hope to be able to say next week when the Adjournment will take place, but I am not in a position to be certain now.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to have a two days' or a one day's Debate on Palestine?

Mr. Morrison: That will be discussed through the usual channels. I cannot say at the moment.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to postpone the Debate over next week and have it the week after? If there is a Debate, it must be a full Debate, because a great many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have views on this matter; and the views are by no means united on either side of the House.

Mr. Morrison: That is very true. I appreciate that. We shall be willing to discuss this matter through the usual channels, but we must be careful not to get into the habit, on any subject of substance, of a two days' Debate becoming the standard. We will discuss it through the usual channels, in a quite friendly way.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to consider the present Rent Restriction Acts, particularly in view of the very serious position created, by as much as £1,000 being asked for a flat, in certain districts?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is asking me about legislation which is highly complex and potentially controversial, and on which many hon. Members, including the legal Members, will thoroughly enjoy themselves.

PRIVILEGE (POSTER)

Mr. John Freeman: In accordance with notice, which I have already given you privately, Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to a matter concerning the Privilege of this House. I have here a copy of a poster which has been posted up in London this morning, and concerns


the vote which hon. Members may record in the Lobbies tonight. I have also a photograph taken by the "Star" newspaper which shows the poster in situ, and both I myself and the photographer are prepared to certify that it is correct and accurate. The poster is published according to the imprint by an organisation known as "Face The Facts Association," of which I understand the secretary is a certain Mrs. Tennant, already known to hon. Members of this House and to the Home Secretary. If you, Mr. Speaker, will be good enough to direct that the contents of this poster be made available to the House, I shall beg leave afterwards to move that such a poster is a high breach of the Privileges of this House.

Hon. Members: Read it.

Mr. Speaker: Before I can say whether it is a breach of Privilege, I think the contents of the poster ought to be read out.

Mr. Freeman: The contents of the poster are as follow:
 Names of M.P.'s voting for bread rationing in the Commons on Thursday will be published here as public enemies and dictators. Face the Facts Association, 6, Lower Sloane Street, S.W.I.

Mr. Speaker: After what I had to say the other day, it must be perfectly obvious that I must declare this to be a prima facie case of breach of Privilege.
The CLERK (Sir GILBERT CAMPION) read the poster complained of.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): You, Mr. Speaker, having declared that prima facie this does constitute a breath of Privilege. I beg to move,
 That the Committee of Privileges do inquire into the authors, printers and dispersers of the said poster.

Mr. Churchill: It is always usual when you, Sir, rule that a matter is prima facie a breach of Privilege, that the House sends it to the Committee of Privileges, and the course which the Leader of the House has taken is entirely in accordance with precedent in that matter. I should be very loth to separate myself from the course of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but I trust I may be permitted to submit to

you one or two observations upon this peculiar case, the like of which I have not seen in my experience of 42 years' actual service in this House. Are we really to understand that the Members of this new House of Commons, just elected by the people, fresh from contact with the people, are going to be frightened out of their wits by something like this? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Are they really? [Interruption.] I know hon. Members opposite do not want free speech anywhere. They will go further and further along the road to destroy it. Why should we suppose that Members of this House, many of whom enjoyed great majorities at the Election and are in close contact with their constituents, will be deterred from doing what they conscientiously believe is their public duty because——

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order——

Mr. Churchill: We are not in Russia yet.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if in view of the statement you have made and the Motion submitted by the Minister, there is anything before the House now, or what are we debating?

Mr. Speaker: There is, quite clearly, a Motion before the House and I must remind the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that it is for me to say what is and what is not in Order. Some of the points of Order he raises are really frivolous.

Mr. Churchill: I really cannot conceive that Members would feel deterred from giving a vote according to their duty and conscience, because some printing firm splashes a poster of an insulting character about the walls of the metropolis. Who has ever said, "You may not put up a poster of an insulting character against anybody or anything, subject, of course to the ordinary laws of life "? Who would insinuate that this House of Commons has already got into such a dither that it is afraid of the vulgar chatter and clamour which arise in the streets? It does seem to me mere panic and that we are ill conceiving our dignity if, because a firm of printers chooses to say that our names will be published if we vote this way or that in a particular Division and applies terms of abuse such as "dictators" whichever


way we vote, we suggest that the House should take action under the great procedure of Privilege. It is a formidable procedure, reserved for cases of a very special character as, for instance, if a poster were put about saying that certain Members had committed a certain crime or had certain particular advantages offered to them and which reflected upon their private honour. In that event, I quite agree there would be a breach of Privilege, but I do not see how the House can press for referring this to a Committee of Privileges when after all it is only——

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to read from Erskine May:
 Any attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.

Mr. Churchill: But with very great respect and I wish to subject myself completely to the Chair—the word "threats" does require some elucidation in modern terms. I mean a threat to knock a man on the head if he votes for bread rationing, is one the House could act upon at once, but a threat to call a fellow a dictator, is really one which is not good enough. I can only say that I shall not ask any of my friends on this side of the House to oppose by a Division, the Motion referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, because I feel that you, Mr. Speaker, having given your Ruling, the matter must take that course and I do not want to offer any divergence from your Ruling as such. At the same time, I must put on record my statement to the House that they must stand up and be men. It is very unfortunate that this newly elected House should show itself so extremely sensitive and touchy. Here is the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who was a gallant officer. Are we to believe that he feels himself deterred and intimidated from doing his duty, because he is going to be called a dictator? This is a very good example of the touchiness and timidity which have already overtaken this vast and newly returned majority—[Interruption.] I am not at all disturbed by that noise; I take the rough with the smooth. Let me make it clear as regards referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges, that we on this side do not oppose the reference, because we are sure that the sensible Committee of Privileges—and who will claim that our

Committee of Privileges is not sensible—will put this matter in its proper place, and allay the anxiety and thin skinnedness of some of our mighty populist and democratic leaders.

Mr. H. Morrison: If I may say so, in a matter of this kind where the procedure of the House is very well known, I think we have had a very unhappy exposition from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I have very little to say and, indeed, there ought to be very little to say——

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is claiming the right to speak twice in this Debate?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman moved a substantive Motion, and has the right to reply.

Mr. Morrison: The procedure which is normally followed by the House is perfectly simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Freeman) saw this poster, and photographs have been taken. The poster, in its wording, says that the names of Members will be published as public enemies and dictators. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whatever other disagreements we might have had with him, was a good House of Commons man and a good Parliamentarian. In fact I have always understood that he once sat in this House as a Constitutionalist. It is open to question—and I am only raising the prima facie point—whether, if Members of this honourable House, in the High Court of Parliament, are to be branded by irresponsible people as public enemies and dictators, the rights and authority and Privileges of Parliament have not been affronted. I am only saying that that is open to question. If Members opposite think that the public have a right to do what they like in the way of threats and coercion of one sort or another with anyone who votes for the Government, that may suit their political prejudice, but it is bad Parliamentary and constitutional doctrine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford raised the point, for submission to your judgment, Sir, whether a prima facie issue of Privilege has arisen and you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that a prima facie issue of Privilege does arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for


Woodford followed with his speech, which seemed to challenge your whole Ruling. Therefore, I have moved that, in the ordinary way, this matter—a prima facie case having been ruled by you, Sir, to arise—should go to the Committee of Privileges for consideration and report. It seems to me that the right time to debate this subject is not now, but when the Committee of Privileges, calmly, dispassionately, and I am sure, fairly, have considered the matter, and reported to the House.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The House will remember that two days ago, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) raised a question of Privilege on the ground that a letter which had been addressed to Members of Parliament seemed to indicate that if they did not take certain steps they would be branded as enemies of the particular association which sent the letter. On that occasion, Sir, you read out exactly the same sentence from Erskine May which you have read today, but then you found that that sentence did not lead to that case being prima facie a breach of Privilege. Can I ask, therefore, what distinguishes the case of Mrs. Tennant, today, which is, prima facie, a breach of Privilege, from the case of Mr. Muddle on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: I think it most extraordinary that I should be asked to give reasons, and I must deprecate that most strongly. I gave my reasons why I did not think in the earlier case the letter in question could be classed as a definite breach of Privilege, because there was a veiled threat in it. It, however, has been brought to my knowledge that this was flaunted outside the House after what said the other day, which makes it much worse. I warned the House then that if anything of this kind occurred, I had no doubt that the House would take a serious view. This, therefore, has occurred within two days of my warning. It has been brought to my notice, and I have declared it to be a prima facie case. I suggest that this is not the time to debate a matter of this kind. The Committee of Privileges is the body to which these things ought to be referred. We can debate their report when it comes before us.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I raise a point, Sir, which has not yet been raised, and in no way questions anything you have said? Accepting what you have said, that there is a prima facie case of a breach of Privilege which must be referred to the Committee of Privileges, the only point I wish to raise is: Is the form of words in which it is being referred to that Committee the right form? I understand from the Leader of the House that he wishes it to be open to the Committee of Privileges to say that this though a prima facie case of a breach is not, in fast, to be treated as a breach of Privilege. Instead, however, of referring it, without limitation, to the Committee of Privileges, he is referring it to them only for inquiry on certain points, which is not in accordance with the form adopted in recent years.

Mr. Speaker: There are three different forms in which the Motion can be put, and this is one of them.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: May we have your guidance on the following point, Mr. Speaker? You have ruled that this is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege and, of course, we accept that, as obviously it is true; but are there not precedents for this House saying that it is unsuitable to use a sledge hammer to crush a pea, and not to refer all prima facie cases of breach of Privilege to this elaborate and solemn procedure?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that has happened. It may have happened, but certainly, I cannot remember it in all my years in the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to put one point, which I consider very important. I put it as one who has on many occasions had prima facie cases presented against him. I want to ask you; Mr. Speaker, whether the Committee of Privileges, in considering this prima facie case, will also take into account those who have incited these people to commit this act—the Front Opposition Bench?

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave the Committee of Privileges to conduct their inquiry in their own way.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has made the allegation——

Mr. Speaker: I trust the right hon. Gentleman is not making another speech.

Mr. Churchill: I am raising a point of Order, Sir. The hon. Member has made the allegation that this poster, which you have ruled constitutes a prima facie case of breach of Privilege of this House, has been instigated by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. May I request your protection in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Surely, the best way is the way which the Leader of the House has indicated—to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, and then they, naturally and automatically, will refute allegations of that kind.

Mr. Churchill: May I very respectfully, submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intervention of the hon. Member for West Fife had nothing whatever to do with the question of what is being published out of doors and what is now to be submitted to the Committee of Privileges? It is a Parliamentary offence to make an insulting charge against Members sitting opposite to you, of this character; namely, that they have instigated——

Mr. Gallacher: No—incited.

Mr. Churchill: I withdraw the word "instigated" and I substitute the word "incited"; the hon. Member is welcome to the difference between them— that they have incited this printer to commit this offence. I ask that that absolutely false and, if I may avail myself of the latitude which has been given on previous occasions, I will say, lying assertion——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is quite obvious that the sooner we send this matter to the Committee of Privileges, the better. I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to remember that we have a fairly heated Debate in front of us. We want this House to remain dignified, and if we merely cast insinuations and expressions across the Floor of the House, we do not get very near the truth.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:
 That the Committee of Privileges do inquire into the authors, printers and dispersers of the said poster.

INDIA (CABINET MISSION)

4.7 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Command Papers relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet Mission to India, and awaits a further opportunity of debate in the Autumn.
The object of putting this Motion on the Order Paper was to enable the Cabinet Mission to report to the House upon the proceedings of the last three and a half months in India. It is not an easy matter to bring within a reasonable compass the report of those long negotiations. They covered a wide variety of interests and communities. Although a majority of our time was spent in an effort to bring together the two principal Indian parties, the Mission and the Viceroy paid the fullest attention to all those other, many other, problems that were raised by the Representatives of the States, the Sikhs, the depressed classes and other important minorities.
Before attempting to give the House a general summary of the course of the negotiations, and their results, I would like to refer to what I may perhaps term the surrounding circumstances. The House must, I am sure, be fully conscious of the fact that the circumstances of the spring of 1946 were vastly different from those of 1942, or, indeed, of 1939. India has shared to the full in the political awakening which is evident all over the world after the war, and nowhere, perhaps, more than in the Far East. The pressures which were sufficiently in evidence before and during the war have become greatly accentuated, and what might have been a reasonable speed of progress before the war would now be regarded as dilatory and inadequate. I have always personally believed that our best hope of maintaining the valued friendship and cooperation of the Indian people was to offer them their full and untrammelled freedom as to their own future and to help them, to the best of our ability, to achieve it as smoothly and quickly as possible. There is no doubt whatever that, at any rate since the early months of this year, no other approach than that would have had any chance of success at all.
When the Mission first arrived in New Delhi the atmosphere for an agreement between the parties was not propitious.


We found a highly charged political atmosphere resulting from the elections which were still in progress in some of the Provinces, and a deep suspicion that, somehow or other, our object would be to delay and frustrate the hopes of Indian independence. The issue of "one or two Indias" had been bitterly contested at the elections and the two major parties, the Congress and the Muslim League, had each of them almost swept the board in their respective constituencies. To some extent, perhaps, this outstanding success of the two major parties simplified the matter because the smaller parties had been relegated to the background by the electorate, but on the other hand it had of course reinforced the major parties in their directly opposed policies.
There was another factor which had an influence and which perhaps I may mention, and that was the weather. Summer in New Delhi is not the best time and place for negotiations. The excessive heat and latterly, in June, the dampness, made it difficult for all parties to maintain that atmosphere of calm and patient deliberation which is so essential in dealing with such complex problems. Perhaps here the House will permit me, in this association, to pay a very real and sincere tribute to the noble Lord who presided over our Mission and whose calm, patient, and determined conduct of the negotiations was so largely responsible for the results that we are able to report.

Mr. Churchill: Who was he?

Sir S. Cripps: Lord Pethick-Lawrence. In coming to the negotiations I would like to divide them into four periods: The first from the time of our arrival to the end of April; the second from the end of April to 16th May, when we issued our first statement; the third from 16th May until 16th June, when we issued our second main statement; and the fourth from 16th June until we left India on 29th June. I will deal shortly with each of these periods, and at the same time with the more important of the documents to be found in the various White Papers, of which there are five, which relate to each of those periods.
First, then, let me take the initial months of negotiation. During this

period we arranged to see in formal interviews those communities, sections, parties, and individuals whom we felt could assist in solving the many problems. There was some criticism of the time we spent upon these interviews, but we were convinced that they were well worth while, and they certainly enabled all of us to appreciate the feelings and the vastly differing desires of the very diverse population of 400,000,000 people with whose representatives we were dealing. In addition to the many interviews, we received a host of written representations and, I may add, a very voluminous correspondence as well. It was at the termination of this first interviewing period that we left New Delhi for four days' holiday in Kashmir. We indicated our hope before leaving New Delhi that the two principal parties might come together for negotiations between themselves during our absence. Immediately on our return, finding that nothing further had transpired during our absence, we set ourselves the task of bringing together the Muslim League and the Congress, because we were determined not to lose any opportunity of reaching an agreement between them.
Apart from the difficulty of arriving at a common view as to the form of the Constituent Assembly, and the composition of the interim Government, which were the two main points, there was, in these initial stages, a wide difference of general approach between the two parties. The Congress held strongly that the question of the interim Government should first be settled, after which a settlement on the Constituent Assembly issue should follow. The Muslim League, on the other hand, were equally firm that they could not discuss the composition of the interim Government until the longer term question associated with the setting up of the constitution-making machinery had been settled. It was not practicable to obtain a settlement of both questions simultaneously, and we came to the conclusion that the best chance to ultimate agreement upon the whole matter was to deal with the longer term question first and thereafter immediately to tackle the problem of the interim Government. It was upon that basis that we proceeded, and it, therefore, became necessary to work out, with the leaders of the two main parties some basis upon which those


parties would be prepared to meet for discussion of the long-term problem. A difficulty here was, of course that the Muslim League were committed up to the hilt to an independent, fully sovereign Pakistan as a separate entity, while the Congress were equally strongly pledged to a unitary India, though they had stated that they could not compel the people of any territorial unit to remain in an Indian Union against their declared will.
The second stage of our negotiations was, therefore, introduced by a very intense period of personal interviews and conversations during which a joint basis was worked out for discussion and ultimately both parties, while making it clear that they were in no way bound, expressed their willingness to meet in Simla to discuss the matter. The basis is set out in the first letter in Command Paper 6829 in these words:
 The future constitutional structure of British India to be as follows: A Union Government dealing with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications. There will be two groups of Provinces, the one of the predominantly Hindu Provinces, and the other of the predominantly Muslim Provinces, dealing with all other subjects which the Provinces in the respective groups desire to be dealt with in common. The Provincial Governments will deal with all other subjects and will have all the residuary sovereign rights.
It was upon this purposely vague formula, worked out in conjunction with the leaders of the two parties, that we were able to bring together to confer with us in Simla four representatives each from the Congress and the Muslim League. We were not over-optimistic regarding a final agreement at this stage, but what we hoped for, and in fact realised, was a much closer approach to a solution which would narrow the gap between the two parties and so enable us subsequently to put forward to them suggestions for bridging that gap. Towards the end of the Simla talks, the two sides produced written statements as to their rival demands which are to be found in Documents 19, 20 and 21 of Command Paper 6829. It will be seen from these documents that both sides had moved very considerably from their initial standpoints. It was not possible to get the parties any closer to one another at Simla, and so, with their consent, the meetings were terminated after lasting a fortnight, and the Mission announced that it would

return to New Delhi and put out a statement of its own views.
We had in fact worked very hard on the production of a plan while at Simla, adapting it in the light of the negotiations that took place there, and on our return to New Delhi we were able to finalise it quickly, so that it was issued on 16th May. It is perhaps worth stating that, contrary to allegations which were made in some quarters in India, we had not gone out to India with any cut and dried plan. We went out with open minds, since our object was not to impose a plan on India, but to help the Indians to agree a plan among themselves. The statement of 16th May is contained in Command Paper 6821. The first eleven paragraphs of that statement deal with introductory matters, and also express our views as to the impracticability of a wholly sovereign Pakistan, whether on the larger or the smaller basis. In paragraph 12 we deal with the Congress suggestion of a particular type of limited union, and in paragraph 13 we point out the impracticability of that scheme. Paragraph 14 deals with the position as to the Indian States, to which I will presently refer, and paragraphs 15 to 22 lay down our suggestions for the long term solution and for the setting up of the Constituent Assembly.
I would ask the House to note particularly the method we adopted and our reason for adopting it. We did not desire in any way to interfere with the making of the future Constitution of India, which was and is a matter entirely for the Indians. On the other hand, we were suggesting to the different communities that they should join in the forming of a constitution-making body on a certain basis which we believed to conform to the greatest common measure of agreement between them. We had to offer each of them some security that if they came in on that basis it would not be changed without their consent. So we adopted the following plan:
In paragraph 15, we recommended a basic form for the future Constitution. These recommendations were the logical outcome of the Simla negotiations. I will not go into them in detail now, because I have no doubt that they are by now familiar to the House. The point to note is that the three-tier system as it has been christened, is nothing more than our recommendation to the Indian people;


but as it was on this basis that we were asking the parties to join in the formation of a Constituent Assembly, it was necessary in paragraph 19 (vii) to stipulate that the provisions of paragraph 15 should not be varied without a majority in each of the two major communities. That was designed with, we were sure, the assent of the Congress, to give a degree of security to the Muslims, if they came in on the basis of our recommendations. Our reason for taking that step was set out quite clearly in paragraph 16 of the statement.
In paragraph 18 we give our reasons for adopting the population basis for the elections to the Constituent Assembly. That method has, I think, met with very general approval. The results of that basis of representation are also set out in paragraph 19, which gives details of the proposal for the constitution making machinery. In paragraph 19 (iv) and paragraph 20, we lay down the special procedure for the extra protection of minorities, and to this we attach great importance. The straight population basis for the Constituent Assembly, with election by the single transferable vote, inevitably results in the minorities to some extent losing their existing weightage in the Provincial Legislature. It was wholly impracticable to extend the population basis to each of the minorities, because their numbers are so divided up among the different Provinces that it would, in practice, have resulted in some of them not gaining any representation at all. We therefore took only three major divisions, Muslim, Sikhs and General.
In the latter category, Congress are, of course, the vast majority, and if, as in fact they are doing, they provide adequate opportunities for the minority representatives to get elected, the minorities will gain and not lose by that arrangement. Despite this, we still felt that the minorities should have some special consideration and we were sure, from our negotiations, that both the major parties were anxious to give them good and fair treatment. We proposed, therefore, the advisory committee of paragraph 20. This provides a way of initiating the recommendations for minority protection in the Constitution, in a body which should consist mainly of minority representatives. We believe that this method is more likely to produce

sound and just results than an insignificant minority in the Constituent Assembly, which is the most that could, by any electoral device, have been obtained for the minorities. Paragraph 22 mentions the need for a treaty to regulate the matters remaining outstanding between the two countries on the transfer of power, and paragraph 23 deals with the matter of the interim Government, to which I shall come presently.
This, then, was the document which, on i6th May, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, we presented to the Indian people as the next stage in the negotiations. It gained an excellent reception in India, although, of course, there were points in it which were criticised on many sides. Neither of the two major parties could achieve the whole of their objective through it, but it presented a practical and flexible compromise, which we hoped both might accept. Before leaving this second period, I should add that, during our stay at Simla, the Viceroy had taken the opportunity of opening the discussions as to the formation of the interim Government which, as we stated in paragraph 23 of the document of 16th May, we regarded as a matter of great importance. We stated then, and we still take the view, that a coalition Government, having full popular support, was necessary, and that we were anxious to settle its composition as soon as possible, so that the two things, the constitution-making machinery and the interim Government, could go forward together. Moreover, it appeared clear at that time, as I have pointed out, that the Congress was unlikely to accept the long-term plan until a solution had also been found for the short-term question of the interim Government.
Thus we came to the end of the second period. There was then a time of waiting—not for us but for the others—which was essential in order to give the party leaders time to consult and, we hoped, to persuade, their followers to accept the statement of 16th May. It had to be assessed and weighed up by the Indian leaders and by public opinion so that, during this period of waiting, there was a great deal to be done by way of explanation, elucidation and persuasion, to try to convince those responsible that they should agree to our suggestions and proposals. Some of these activities


are illustrated by the rather voluminous correspondence contained in Command Paper 6861, and these letters, I would warn the House, must be read as progressive stages in a negotiation. From them can be observed the gradual elimination of some of the difficulties which seemed insuperable to the parties in the first instance. I need not trouble the House with them now, though I would emphasise that the points of disagreement were very few, whereas the general degree of acceptance of the statement was very great. During this period, the discussions on the interim Government proceeded side by side with those relating to the statement of 16th May. This led to a certain amount of admixture of the two issues and, I think, to a growing sense on all sides of the interrelation of the two.
On 6th June, the All India Muslim League passed a resolution which, while critical of the contents of the statement of 16th May, particularly on the Pakistan issue, and while reserving opinions on that point, yet definitely accepted the scheme put forward by the Mission. That was a great step forward, and it must have required no little courage and determination on Mr. Jinnah's part, in the light of the strong views held and very forcibly expressed by his followers, to support and carry this Resolution through the Muslim League. The Congress, who met immediately after the All-India Muslim League, were still anxious that the two issues should be dealt with together. There were a number of matters as regards the statement of 16th May which disturbed them, and as to which they sought assurances or alterations. On 25th May the Mission, following upon a statement by Mr. Jinnah and a Resolution by the Congress Working Committee, put out an explanatory document, which is Document A in Command Paper 6835. This covers a number of points raised by both sides. The Mission felt that after that statement, they could not go further into the matter by way of formal explanation or elaboration.
There were two main points which the Congress were stressing as to the statement of 16th May. The first was as to whether the provinces were compelled to come into the sections of the Constituent Assembly—sections A, B and C—in the first instance, or whether they could stay out if they wished. We made it quite

clear that it was an essential feature of the scheme that the provinces should go into sections, though, if groups were subsequently formed, they could afterwards opt out of those groups. A fear was expressed that, somehow or other, the new Provincial constitutions might be so manoeuvred as to make it impossible for the Provinces afterwards to opt out. I do not myself see how such a thing would be possible, but if anything of that kind were to be attempted, it would be a clear breach of the basic understanding of the scheme. The essence of the constitution-making scheme is that the provincial representatives in sections A, B and C, mentioned in paragraph 19, should have the opportunity of meeting together and deliberating upon the desirability of forming a "group," and upon the nature and extent of the subjects to be dealt with by the group. If, when the pattern of the group ultimately emerges, any Province wishes to withdraw from the group, because it is not satisfied, then it is at liberty to do so after the first election under the new Constitution, when, with no doubt a wider electorate than at present, that matter can be made a straight election issue.
The second point which disturbed Congress was as to the European vote. The Congress took the view that, as we had laid down that the constitution was to be made by Indians for Indians, Europeans had no locus at all in this matter. So far as sitting in the Constituent Assembly was concerned, that seemed pretty clear, and while we were in India the European Party in the Bengal Legislature—which is the important case in point of course—expressed clearly their intention neither to nominate nor to vote for any European in the Constituent Assembly and that resolution will be found in Command Paper 6862 document 6 Since our departure they have gone further and have decided to take no part in the election at all. That will be found in Document 7. The same has been done, I understand, by the Europeans in Assam. That matter has, therefore, been got out of the way, not by our decision, but by the sensible and cooperative attitude of the Europeans themselves, who have, throughout, done their best to assist towards the working out of the new regime in India. But, before I leave the matter of the new Constituent Assembly, I would like to mention some of the recent


reports coming from India as to the alleged intentions of the parties in joining the Constituent Assembly. We saw representatives of both parties shortly before we left India, and they stated to us quite categorically that it was their intention to go into the Assembly with the object of making it work. They are, of course, at perfect liberty to advance their own views on what should or should not be the basis of a future Constitution. That is the purpose of the Constituent Assembly—to hammer out agreement from diverse opinions and plans—and likewise they can put forward their views as to how the Constituent Assembly should conduct its business. But, having agreed to the statement of 16th May on the Constituent Assembly, elected in accordance with that statement, they cannot, of course, go outside the terms of what has been agreed. That would not be fair to the other parties who have come in, and it is on the basis of that agreed procedure, that His Majesty's Government have said they will accept the decision of the Constituent Assembly.
As to the States, they need have no anxiety. It is for them to agree freely to come in, or not, as they choose, and it is for that purpose that they have set up the negotiating committee and I am sure that that committee will have the wisdom to work out an acceptable basis for their cooperation in the Constituent Assembly. It is, after all, upon the free consents of the many diverse elements of the Indian people that the success of the new Constitution will depend, and I am confident, from all that was said to us in India, that all parties appreciate that fundamental fact. Union cannot be by force; it must be by agreement. It will be the task of the Constituent Assembly to attain that agreement, which will be possible if the majorities and minorities alike are tolerant and are prepared to cooperate for the future of all India.
I must take up the question of the interim Government, for, as other difficulties cleared away, this gradually emerged as the crucial issue in the third period. The Viceroy had started, as I have said, his discussions in Simla on the basis of five representatives of Congress, five from the Muslim League, and two representatives of minorities. That basis was to some extent influenced by the discussions which he had had in the previous

year, in the autumn of 1945, in Simla. As will appear from the correspondence in Cmd. Paper 6861, the Congress took strong exception to parity between the two parties, and parity at this stage became the foremost obstruction to progress.
There are three possible forms of parity—first, between the Muslim League and Congress an a party basis; secondly, between Muslims and Hindus on a communal basis; and, third, between Muslims and Hindus other than scheduled castes. We were aiming at a coalition of political parties, and so were concerned with the first form of parity. We sought to overcome the difficulty about this by adding a Congress representative of the depressed classes to their five representatives, thus making six Congress to five Muslim League, and retaining the two other minority representatives, one of whom would, of course, have been a Sikh. This would have given an interim Government of 13 in all, and not 12 as originally suggested. This proposal Mr. Jinnah was prepared to put to his Committee and it would, I think, have been accepted by them, but Congress were not satisfied with it. At this stage we tried to get a meeting between Pandit Nehru and Mr. Jinnah in the hope that at such a meeting a compromise could be achieved, but, as will be seen from the letters 9, 10 and 11, that attempt proved abortive. There was apparently some misunderstanding by Mr. Jinnah as to the status of the original 5: 5: 2 proposal. This is shown by his letter of the 8th June—No. 7—but this was cleared up by the Viceroy in his answer of 9th June, which is Document 8, and which makes it perfectly clear that no assurance was ever given to Mr. Jinnah upon this point.

Mr. Churchill: Which one?

Sir S. Cripps: If the right hon. Gentleman did not talk quite so much, perhaps he would hear. It was the basis of the negotiations upon which it was hoped agreement might be reached, but nothing more. We thus reached a complete deadlock, as is shown by the letter of the Congress President, which is No. 19 in Command Paper 6861, and it seemed that the only possible way to break that deadlock was for the Viceroy—in consultation with the Mission—to choose a suitable interim Government on the basis judged most likely to be acceptable to both parties in


view of their expressed opinions, and to make a statement publicly that he was going ahead on that basis, and he so informed the parties, telling Mr. Jinnah that Congress had not accepted the 6:5:2 basis. There resulted from this the second main statement of 16th June, which is document 21 in Command Paper 6861. That proposed Government was built up on the basis of six Congress, including one from the depressed classes, five Muslim League, one Sikh and two others—a Parsi and an Indian Christian, thus making 14 in all. The Viceroy had had unofficial and tentative lists of names from both sides, and these were largely used as the basis of the selection of the 14 names. Thus ended, with this publication, the third stage of the negotiations. On this occasion Mr. Jinnah took up the position verbally that he would await the Congress decision before giving the decision of the Muslim League, and that will be found confirmed in the letters 26 and 26A.
The Congress were very much troubled by the type of parity that still remained between Muslims and Hindus, other than scheduled castes, and also by the inclusion of Sir. N. P. Engineer, not because of his personal qualifications—which they admitted were of the highest—but because they considered that he was holding an official post which they thought gave him an official rather than a representative character. The major problem, however, was still that of parity. It might have been that, despite all the difficulties, Congress would have consented to this arrangement had there not been an unfortunate and widely publicised disclosure of certain letters written by Mr. Jinnah at this precise moment. The most important of these was that which is numbered 22 in the White Paper 6861, which contained the following sentence:
 The Muslim League would never accept the nomination of any Muslim by you "—
that was the Viceroy—
.' other than a Muslim Leaguer.
That at once became the major issue. Congress were, in fact, considering the possibility of asking for the substitution of one of their Hindus by a Muslim in order, in that way, to get over the parity difficulty, and they might perhaps have waived this suggestion of nominating a Muslim had it not been that this public challenge was at this moment made as to their right to do so. Congress has, of

course, as everybody knows, always insisted upon the non-communal nature of its organisation, and it has fully demonstrated this fact by its nomination of personnel to those Provincial Governments in which it has a large majority. It was made perfectly clear to Mr. Jinnah on more than one occasion that neither the Viceroy nor the Mission could accept his claim to a monopoly of Muslim appointments, though the Muslim League was certainly to be regarded as the major representative of Muslim interests.
In order to explain the subsequent events, I must now return to the statement of 16th June. In paragraph 8 of that statement we had laid down the course which we should pursue in the event of both or either of the two major parties being unable to accept a Coalition Government on the basis there laid down. If either refused, the whole basis of the proposed Coalition fell to the ground, but we desired to protect any who had agreed to cooperate in the plan of 16th May for the Constituent Assembly, and so we stated that in the event of failure to form a Coalition on the lines set out—
 It is the intention of the Viceroy to proceed with the formation of an Interim Government which will be as representative as possible of those willing to accept the statement of May 16th.
Up to 16th June this indicated the Muslim League only, as neither Congress nor the Sikhs had up to that time given any decision. When Congress ultimately came to their final decision, they decided, I am glad to say, to accept the statement of 16th May while, unfortunately, rejecting the interim Government proposed, for those reasons that I have already stated, and this appears from the letter No. 31 and from their resolution No. 32. This acceptance of the statement of 16th May was, I think, an act of statesmanship on their part, as it enabled progress to be made towards the working out of the new constitution. Immediately we received that letter No. 31, we saw Mr. Jinnah —within an hour, I think—and told him the position, giving him a copy of the letter and informing him that the scheme of 16th June had fallen to the ground since Congress had turned it down, and this was confirmed the same evening by the letter No. 33.
Up to that moment the Muslim League had arrived at no decision as to their


attitude to the proposal of 16th June. As I have already pointed out, they had adopted the line that they must await the Congress decision before themselves deciding. Mr. Jinnah went straight from this meeting with us to his own Working Committee, who thereupon passed a Resolution, which is set out in Document 34 accepting the scheme of i6th June. Presumably Mr. Jinnah told his Working Committee what had passed at the interview, though he does not make that clear in his letter No. 35. Mr. Jinnah seemed to think that the acceptance by Congress of the statement of 16th May had put him into a false position and that we should have proceeded forthwith to the formation of an interim Government with the Muslim League alone. His arguments on this point will be found in the statement he made to the Press, which is Document 39, and in his letter to the Viceroy No. 43, which was answered shortly in two letters, 42 and 44.
It is easy, of course, to realise the disappointment of Mr. Jinnah that Congress had not accepted what apparently seemed to him the acceptable arrangement of 16th June, for the Coalition Government there set out, while, at the same time, qualifying themselves for consultation upon the formation of some other interim Government by agreeing to operate the plan of 16th May. Mr. Jinnah was anxious to enter the Coalition Government laid down in the statement of 16th June but as paragraph 8 of that statement made the setting up of such a Government dependent upon acceptance by both parties it was impossible to proceed upon that basis when one party—and that the major party—had stated its unwillingness to accept. The situation now is that the Viceroy will proceed to act under paragraph 8 of the statement of 16th June. There has been quite understandable criticism of the fact that a purely temporary official Government has been set up in the meantime.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes on, there is some misunderstanding arising out of paragraph 8, of which we have heard a great deal. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what is meant by the words:

 or either of them proving unwilling to join in the setting, up of a Coalition Government…?
We shall then have all the case before us.

Sir S. Cripps: I thought I had made it clear. When the right hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will see that I have covered it. If either Congress or the Muslim League would not consent to come into the Coalition Government, the scheme for the Coalition Government went, because it would no longer be a coalition, and we should have to try to find some other interim Government of those who accepted the scheme of 16th May.
It was admittedly necessary to take some immediate steps as regards the Viceroy's Executive as a number of its members had resigned, some of them having returned to this country. There were only two possible alternatives, either to proceed at once with fresh negotiations with the two major parties or else appoint a purely transitional Government until such time as those further negotiations could take place. For the purpose of such a transitional Government the only practical method was to set up a purely official caretaker Government and as the House knows that is what has been done and that is the Government which is now functioning. I must make it quite clear that this is a purely temporary expedient to tide over the time until a representative interim Government can be formed. The deciding factor in the choice between the two alternatives was a purely practical one. No one desired an official Government, had any other solution been possible. Only those who have carried through intensive negotiations during the summer months in Delhi can realise how exhausted all the participants were. It was essential that there should be a short pause after three and a half months of intense work, and this necessity was further emphasised by the fact that all the Congress Working Committee had to leave for the All India Congress Committee meeting at Bombay on 8th July and that all parties wished to participate in the elections to the Constituent Assembly. I must here pay a tribute to the amazing way in which the Viceroy carried the great load of these negotiations throughout all these months during which he had the task of carrying on all his many day-to-day duties in the


Government of India as well. It is not perhaps surprising that he too was feeling tired and needed a period of comparative rest.
So it was that this purely temporary expedient was adopted. The next stage, which will come very shortly, will be for the Viceroy to resume negotiations with the two major parties for the formation of an interim Government. This will admittedly be a difficult task but we hope that the fact that the constitution-making machinery is now being at last launched will make both parties realise the absolute necessity for compromise on the question of the Interim Government. This Government is no part of any permanent structure in India, it is a purely provisional Government to carry on until such time as the new constitution comes into operation, and it would therefore seem inappropriate for either party to delay its formation by insisting upon principles, which may well be important from a long term point of view but which for a purely temporary purpose will have no influence upon their future position. The members of the Mission would wish to appeal to all those on both sides in India with whom they developed such truly friendly relations during their stay in India to put aside, for this purpose, their keen communal and party feelings and to come together for the good of India in this difficult time when an efficient and representative Government is so vital to her future welfare.
So far I have of necessity concentrated upon the position of the two major parties, but although these represent a large proportion of the total population of British India, there are other important elements which are entitled to the fullest consideration. First, perhaps I might deal with that large section of the Indian territory and population which comes within the Indian States. The House will no doubt be familiar with our relationship with the Indian States described by the word paramountcy. We had a series of very interesting talks with the representatives of the Princes and some of the leading States Ministers, as well as a good deal of correspondence, and we were most impressed by the cooperative attitude which they adopted throughout. The Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, His Highness the Nawab of Bhopal, was very helpful and will, I am sure, contri-

bute much to the solution of the problems of the Indian States.
Our attitude to the States is expressed in paragraph 14 of the statement of 16th May where we record the willingness expressed by the States to cooperate, and also their receptive attitude as to the winding-up of the paramountcy relationship. This matter was further elaborated in a memorandum handed by us to the Chancellor of the Chamber, which is Document B in Cmd 6835. I would particularly thaw the attention of the House to paragraph of this document, which stresses the need for immediate action by the States in order to prepare themselves for taking their place in the future Indian Union. This statement of the position was accepted by the States representatives, and in the particular respect I have mentioned I would ask the House to note paragraph 4 of the enclosure to Document 4 in Cmd. 6862, which is the public statement put out by the States on their position. The States are willing and anxious to cooperate and to bring their own constitutions into such conformity with those of British India as to make it possible -for them to enter the Federal Union. There will of course have to be close negotiations between the negotiating Committee which the States have set up and the major British Indian parties both as to the representation of the States in the Constituent Assembly and as to their ultimate position in the Union. If the same reasonable temper continues to be shown about these matters as was the case while we were in India we may well hope that an accommodation will be arrived at which will enable all India to come within the Union set up by the Constitution-making machinery.
I now pass to the question of the Sikhs. It was a matter of great distress to us that the Sikhs should feel that they had not received the treatment which they deserved as an important section of the Indian people. The difficulty arises, not from anyone's underestimate of the importance of the Sikh community, but from the inescapable geographical facts of the situation. The views of the Sikhs will be found in Documents 1 and 3 of the Cmd. Paper 6862. From these it will be seen that what they demand is some special treatment analogous to that given to the Muslims. The Sikhs, however, are a much smaller community, 5½ as against 90 millions, and moreover are not geographically


situated so that any area as yet devised—I do not put it out of possibility that one may be devised in the future can be carved out in which they would find themselves in a majority. It is, however, essential that the fullest consideration should be given to their claims, for they are a distinct and important community whose culture and interests deserve protection.
The most that we could do directly was to nominate them in paragraph 19 of the statement of 16th May as one of the more important communities, and this we have done. But on the population basis there adopted they lose their weightage, and consequently have only four out of a total of 28 seats in the Punjab or out of 35 in the North Western Section for the Constituent Assembly. We hope this situation may to some extent be remedied by their full representation in the Advisory Committee on minorities set up under paragraph 20 of the statement of 16th May. Over and above that we have represented to the two major parties—who were both most receptive that some special means of giving the Sikhs a strong voice in the affairs of the Punjab or the North Western Section should be devised. I feel most hopeful that if only our Sikh friends will maintain a single and undivided view amongst themselves, and are patient, they will find their position is generally recognised and that they will be able, with the two main parties, to work out some satisfactory arrangement.
I now come to the third element outside the two major parties, the depressed classes. The difficulty that arises here is that there are two claimants to represent this large body of Indians, the one identified with the name of Dr. Ambedkar, who has fought so strenuously for the rights of the depressed classes, and the other, which works in close association with the Congress. Dr. Ambedkar's organisation is somewhat more local in its character, being mainly centred in Bombay and the Central Provinces; the Congress affiliated organisation is spread widely over the whole country. We naturally considered with great care as to what could be done to obtain representation for both organisations in accordance with their popular support in the country.
The House will remember no doubt, that the electoral basis for the depressed

class representatives was settled by what is known as the Poona Pact, agreed to under pressure by Dr. Ambedkar, which lays down a most complicated system of election in which there are primary elections by depressed class electors alone, in which four candidates are chosen, from which subsequently, in a second election, one is chosen by the general electorate. Whether this is a good or bad system it is one to which the parties agreed and which is in operation, and, as a result of it, at the last provincial elections Congress made practically a clean sweep of the whole of the depressed class constituencies. That is the fact and as it was almost universally agreed that the members of the provincial legislative assemblies formed the only possible electorate for the Constituent Assembly, it was not possible, even had we desired to do so, to arrange for Dr. Ambedkar's organisation to have any special right of election to the Constituent Assembly. It had failed in the elections, and we could not artificially restore its position. The depressed classes will, of course, have their full representation through the Congress affiliated organisation. We interviewed the leaders of that organisation and were convinced of their very genuine and strong desire to support the case of the depressed classes.
Here again, however, the Advisory Committee on minorities can provide an opportunity for the reasonable representation of both organisations, and we hope very much that the majority of the Constituent Assembly, in setting up that Advisory Committee, will be generous in their allocation of seats to all the minorities but particularly to minority organisations which, though they have a considerable following in the country may have little or no representation in the Constituent Assembly itself. The other minorities though, of course, each important in their own field, do not I think raise any major questions with which I need here deal. They will all we hope be fully represented on the Advisory Committee. I should, however, perhaps draw the attention of the House to one other matter in this respect. Members will observe that in paragraph 20 of the statement of r6th May we deal not only with the rights of citizens—fundamental rights—and of minorities, but also with tribal and excluded areas. Here again it was impossible to arrange for any worth while repre-


sentation for these particular interests in the Constituent Assembly, and in consequence we felt that, having regard to the very special nature of the problems raised, it was far better for them to be dealt with by a more specialised body. We hope that the Advisory Committee will appoint small committees of specialists to deal with these matters in the various areas so that the Constituent Assembly may have the best possible advice before it comes to any decisions.
I have attempted in what I fear has been a rather long review of our negotiations, to cover some of the major points. I hope that Members will not think, because I have omitted to mention them, that there were not a mass of other matters to which we gave most careful attention. We met daily, including Sundays, and often two or three times a day so that we might consult fully upon every point that arose, and despite the heat and the long hours I can, I am sure, say on behalf of myself and my colleagues that we were a most cohesive and good tempered team, and we certainly did not shirk any single issue that was brought to our attention.
Before coming to a short summing up of the situation, as I now see it, I want to pay a sincere tribute to all those with whom we negotiated. It would be invidious to mention names, but I am convinced that every single person with whom we dealt was genuinely anxious to arrive at a solution of these most difficult problems. They each rightly pressed, and pressed strongly, the particular views of their community or party, but also they one and all made very considerable compromises which were especially difficult in view of the very pronounced election propaganda period which immediately preceded our visit. We are most grateful to them for their contribution, as well as for the very friendly and helpful way in which they received and entertained us in their country.
We were sent to India to try and work out with the Indian parties a way of completing the structure of Indian independence which has long been planned and contemplated. Every step that has been taken before and since the first world war has been in that direction, but so far it has not been possible to bring to full fruition the plans and promises that have been made. There is no doubt that at the time of our arrival in India

there was a universal and dangerous spirit of frustration and disillusionment. The first great step to clear away this fog of doubt and hesitation was taken when the Prime Minister made his speech in this House on 15th March last. That speech, which was accorded a friendly reception from every quarter of the House and by all the British Press, had a profound effect in India. We quoted some of the more important passages from it in the opening paragraph of our statement of 16th May, and it was upon that foundation which had been accepted by all sides of the House and the country that we tried to build.
In this statement of Government policy the Prime Minister, in one respect, and in one respect only, went further than any British Government had gone before. In the offer of 1942, India was promised the position of a Dominion, and it was then expressly stated on instructions from the Coalition Government that should India desire so to do once she had achieved her independence she would be free to go out of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Since 1942 conditions had changed. What was then rejected would have been a a hundred times more certain of rejection in 1946. The one hope of a peaceful and friendly change of Sovereignty was to offer the Indians their complete and unqualified independence whether within or without the British Commonwealth. In that way alone was there a hope of retaining their friendship and ultimate cooperation. It was largely this change in approach, announced by the Prime Minister on 15th March, that made it possible for our mission to make headway towards a settlement. Without it our visit to India would have been pointless and fruitless.
When we left India there had undoubtedly been a change of atmosphere. There was a trust in the sincerity of the British Government which had formerly been absent and a desire and willingness for co-operation in the solution of India's, problems. That is the first positive gain, and it is something which we believe augurs well for our future relationship with an Independent India, whether she chooses to remain within or to go without the British Commonwealth.
Second, we have negotiated an agreement between the main Indian parties, acceptable to the Indian States, which provides machinery for working out a new


constitution. It is not our task to make that machinery work. We must now stand aside always ready and anxious to help if we are wanted but determined not to interfere. No one would be so foolish as to imagine that the course of constitution-making will be a smooth one. The rival parties will not give up their deeply-held convictions in a moment of time, but we have succeeded in doing what it has often been suggested was necessary. We have negotiated a means of bringing the representatives of the Indian people together—without our presence—to settle for themselves their own exceedingly difficult problems.
We believe that, given the accommodation which both sides have shown in agreeing to the plan, it will not be impossible to work out a solution for the many problems that confront the Constituent Assembly. One factor certainly is encouraging and that is that all parties are trying to get the very best persons elected to the Constituent Assembly including many who are not party men at all. There is every hope that that body when elected will represent the best of nearly every element of Indian life, including of course the minorities though it is most regrettable that the Sikhs have recently withdrawn their candidate. Unfortunately we did not succeed in accomplishing the second task which we regard as of great importance, that is the setting up of a representative interim Government. We did not fail because of any difficulty between the Viceroy or the British Government and the Indians. We failed because so far we have not been able to devise a composition of Government acceptable to both parties. In the ultimate stages the issue came down to a very narrow one, upon which neither party were prepared to give way, whether the Congress could nominate a Muslim as one of their representatives in the Interim Government. It would obviously be undesirable for me to comment on that situation which is one with which the Viceroy will have to deal in the forthcoming negotiations, nor, as I am sure the House fully realises, would it be helpful if members were to canvass one or other of the contentions put forward. On both sides, the convictions are deeply held and honestly held and both parties attach great importance to this issue.
There can be no doubt in any of our minds that the course of the Constituent Assembly will run more smoothly if a representative Government can be set up at the centre, nor have we any doubt whatever that the circumstances of India today demand the setting up of such a Government as an urgent matter. Both the major parties equally agree that a Coalition Government is highly desirable, and indeed necessary. After a short respite from the negotiations, we hope that both parties may find a way out of this dilemma, for no one can contemplate with any equanimity the breakdown of the progress to Indian independence because of the method of allocating a single seat in an Interim Government. The magnitude of what we are trying to accomplish cannot be over-estimated. It is nothing less than the transfer by peaceful means of the sovereignty over 400 million people situated in many diverse territories, of differing religions, and different races.
To achieve such an aim would be to revitalise the faith of the world in peaceful methods and human reasonableness. Success, though not yet by any means certain, is within the grasp of ourselves and our Indian friends, and we may hope that in this realisation the remaining difficulties may be overcome. There is one thing of which I feel certain, that every person in this House and this country will desire their most heartfelt wishes for success to be conveyed to those representatives of the Indian people who will shortly be meeting in their Constituent Assembly. May God bless their labours and may they achieve for India, upon a sound and lasting basis, that freedom for which all her people long.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: Everyone is glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's health is restored. We were anxious about him when he was in India because naturally these long, intense, soul-stirring conferences with the Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, accompanied by the exceptionally hot weather of the Indian summer, might well have imposed a very severe strain upon him, but we are glad to see today that his health is restored. He has certainly given us a very long and categorical statement of the Mission on which he has been engaged with two other Members of


the Government. I shall not attempt to follow him in any proportionate length. I hope he will not think it disrespectful on my part if I do not attempt to make a reply covering the entire ground, because I thought we were all agreed that it is better to put off the general Debate upon this tremendous event in the history of India, and in our history, until we meet again in the autumn. If everyone was to do full justice to all the aspects upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has touched, it is perfectly certain that we should only reach our other attractive topic of bread rationing at a very late hour tonight.
We shall see more clearly, I think, in the autumn how matters stand, and we shall see the outlines, at any rate, of the decisions which have to be taken. The Government have promised a full dress Debate at a convenient moment, and the Mission recommends, by implication, the postponement of the discussion until then. When we return after the Recess, we shall have that Debate, and all I wish to do now is to put on record some of the principal divergencies which separate us, as well as recognising the points to which we are are all committed.
For good or ill, we are all committed to the offer made at the time of what I may call the Cripps Mission in the spring of 1942. That offer was made at the moment when the Japanese held full naval command of the Bay of Bengal, and it seemed that India might be invaded and ravaged by a large Japanese army. I, as Prime Minister, took my full share of responsibility in those circumstances for making the offer of 1942. Those days of peril are gone. Although we received no assistance from the Congress Party in India, whose attitude throughout the war was one of non-cooperation, in spite of that, 2,000,000 or more Indians volunteered to fight for the cause of freedom. The Congress Party gave us no assistance; on the contrary, they did us the greatest injury in their power, but the disorders were easily suppressed and the danger of foreign invasion was warded off.

Mr. Cove: What did the Muslim League do?

Mr. Churchill: The Muslim League did not give active cooperation as a League, but the Punjab State alone produced up wards of 800,000 volunteers. The remark-

able thing, since I am drawn into this by this interruption, is that the political parties did not at all sway the influence and actions of the Indian millions. Millions of men volunteered, without conscription, to fight, and great numbers gave their aid in war work, and the political parties, who are the only parties—the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) drew me into this—with whom the Government arc dealing had no means of controlling the enthusiasm and loyalty of their people.

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove rose——

Mr. Churchill: No, I must be allowed to make my own speech. As I say, I do not wish to be drawn from the straight and narrow path which I have marked out for myself in this discussion, because I might easily add to the length of the Debate, which I have no wish to do, We have had a very full statement from the Government. Nevertheless, although, as I say, we got no assistance, we declared that the offer which we had made should stand. The present Government had, therefore, a right to our agreement and support in sending out the Mission of Cabinet Ministers, who have just returned after arduous experiences. The directions given to the Mission, however, went beyond, and, as I hold, needlessly beyond, those which governed the wartime Cripps Mission of 1942. The Coalition offer was, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just reminded us, of Dominion status, which includes, of course, the Clause in the Statute of Westminster, what we might call the escalator Clause, which affirmed the right of secession, in the last resort, from the British Commonwealth of Nations by any Dominion, The Coalition offer was also conditional upon agreement being reached between the principal parties in India, so that the offer of full Dominion status, including the right to secede, would not lead to disastrous, and possibly devastating, civil war.
His Majesty's present Government went beyond the offer of 1942. They instructed their delegates to offer full independence directly, instead of Dominion status, which left the final decision open to a fully-constituted Dominion of India, after seeing how they were getting on and how the general situation lay. So far an I can see, the result which is now put before us—and nothing in the speech of


the right hon. and learned Gentleman in any way detracts from it—is the immediate independence of India and the severance of all constitutional ties uniting the former Indian Empire to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I wish to register my dissent from this extension and short-circuiting of the original offer. The responsibility for making the further advance and for pressing full and immediate independence upon India, without giving Indians a chance to get into the saddle and look around to see where their broad interests lie—the responsibility for that is the responsibility of the present Government, and I, for my part, can share no part of that responsibility. I consider that this short-circuiting or telescoping of the normal and reasonable constitutional processes upon which both parties were agreed does not give the best chance of a happy or peaceful solution of the Indian problem, and that, having regard to the elements in India to whom the Government mainly addressed themselves, it prejudges, in an adverse sense, the case of whether the vast sub-continent of India, with its population of 400,000,000, should remain, of its own free will, within the circle of the association of the British Commonwealth. The Government had the power to make this change and theirs is the responsibility for making it. That is all I am concerned to establish today. I am not going to trespass, if I can avoid it, upon merits. I am merely showing where we lie in the relationship to this formidable and enormous topic.
Secondly, the offer of 1942 was conditional upon agreement being reached among the principal forces and parties in the life of India. This has certainly not been achieved. The Mission proceeded themselves to shape the outlines of the settlement, and to endeavour, as far as possible, to induce all the elements concerned to agree to it as a working basis. Again, I do not challenge the right of the Government to take this action, for which, no doubt, they have a large Parliamentary majority. I am only trying to make it clear that, in this respect also —the question of agreement—the Government have gone beyond any position to which I and my colleagues in the National Coalition Government were committed by the offer of 1942. I do

not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman denies that.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I had precisely the same job to do in 1942? I took a scheme which was got out by the Government and I tried to get both parties to agree to it. That is exactly what has happened in this case.

Mr. Churchill: My point was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took out a different scheme. As a great precision man, and a man of the very highest legalistic attainments, a small point like that ought not to have escaped his notice.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but not quite accurate. What he was saying was that we ought not to have imposed some settlement, but that it should be a condition that both parties agreed to it, and that, in this case, they had not agreed to it and it was something which we had imposed upon them. I was pointing out that, in 1942, under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, a scheme was got out by the Cabinet in London and was sent out, and my object was to try to get both parties to agree to a scheme which was sent out from London. The right hon. Gentleman cannot complain that what we have done now is to get two parties to agree to a scheme.

Mr. Churchill: In the first place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not got the two parties to agree; they are in the most violent disagreement, and their passion is mounting day by day. In the second place, the scheme which he took out was a different one. In the third place, when that scheme did not commend itself to those to whom he addressed himself, he took the positive action—and I do not say he was wrong from his point of view to do it—of trying to solve the Indian problem for the Indians instead of leaving it to the Indians to solve, or not to solve. He took the positive course of trying to solve it, and proposed a basis on which he hoped they would come together.

Sir S. Cripps: As in 1942.

Mr. Churchill: In 1942, the right hon. Gentleman had no authorisation to attempt to make a separate declaration


apart from any view built up between Indians, as he has done now. I am not making this a complaint against the right hon. and learned Gentleman; I can quite see that when they were there and nobody would agree to anything, the third party came in and said, "Let us have a try. Won't you agree to this?" All I say is, that it is quite different from the proposals to which we agreed.

Sir S. Cripps: Sir S. Cripps rose——

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very long speech, but if he wants to make a further one, I will sit down.
There is a third point of great importance, namely, the faithful discharge of our obligations, contracted over so many years and affirmed by so many British Governments, to the various minorities in India. I was sorry that in his speech of, I think, 15th March, the Prime Minister should have spoken in a somewhat adverse, or at least uncertain, sense about the rights of minorities, because the protection of those fundamental rights affects our duty to discharge the pledges which we have so often given. These minorities in India are very considerable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned several of them today. There are, for instance, the 40 to 60 million of the depressed classes who are consternated by the lack of representation which they are to receive in the future Constituent Assembly. I received most vehement and painful appeals from the leaders of these great communities, and I discussed them with my colleagues on this side of the House.
When one speaks of a community as large as 60 million, the word "minority" loses much of its significance. Such immense masses of human beings deserve to be treated with respect and consideration, positively and not relatively, even if there are other and still large masses who take a different view. After all, in these islands we have only 46 million, a much smaller number than the depressed classes of India. We should be sorry just to be called a minority by Europe and to have our way of life ordered for us by a mass vote of all the other countries. In fact, I think that we should very likely recur, with satisfaction, to our insular position. When the issue affecting minorities numbered by scores of millions is also

one which concerns the fundamental rights of those minorities, all pledges with regard to them require most scrupulous attention by the ruling authority at the moment it hands over these masses, with their fate and their fortunes, to another system of Government. That is a point which, I trust, will not be found to be one of difference in principle, although there may be difference in emphasis.
Then there are the Muslims, who number over 80 million—90 million, I think, was the figure quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; he has the latest figures—and make up so large a majority of the martial races of India. There is no doubt that there is a complete lack of agreement at the present time between the two principal communities. The Mission have laboured hard, and they have dealt particularly with these two communities, allowing many other valuable and important forces, who have a right to live also, to fall back into the background. As between these two communities, the difficulties were never more acute and the gulf never more wide than at the present moment. The outlook is very grave. The acceptance by the martial races of the final settlement which we shall make before we leave India is indispensable to future peace.
Thirdly, among the elements which go to make up India, are the Indian States which, together, comprise nearly 95 million. The position of these States has been fixed by solemn treaties made with their rulers. It is proposed to abrogate those treaties and to abolish the principle of paramountcy which, at present, alone defines the relationship of these States—in some cases almost nations, in some cases models of good government in India —to whatever new Central Government is set up in India. If all the minorities are added together, they constitute much more than half the inhabitants of India. I am glad to say that, as far as I understand the position, His Majesty's Government have not abandoned the principle of the discharge of their responsibilities towards the minorities in India which aggregate at least 225 million out of 400 million. I hope we shall hear from the First Lord of the Admiralty that they have not abandoned their responsibilities in that matter.
The attitude of the Mission, and of the Government whom they represented, is


expressed on this point in a single sentence of the plan which they put before the representatives of Indian life with whom they dealt. This is the sentence:
 When the constituent Assembly has completed its labours, His Majesty's Government will recommend to Parliament such action as may be necessary for the cession of sovereignty to the Indian people subject only to two provisos which are mentioned in the statement and which are not, we believe, controversial, namely, adequate provision for the protection of minorities, and willingness to conclude a treaty to cover matters arising out of the transfer of power.
This seems to me to be a somewhat light, optimistic and almost casual manner of treating responsibilities extending to an appreciable part of the human race and touching those fundamental rights—" life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness "—which we have regarded as the birthright of every human being. It makes it clear, however, and all I desire to do is to emphasise this by putting on record that all arrangements to be made by the Constituent Assembly, and any treaties which may subsequently be brought into existence between the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain and the new sovereign independent Government of India, must be subject to the fulfilment of the honourable discharge of our obligations. I hope we are agreeable on that. I hope we are not going to hear a contradiction from the First Lord on that. A Bill, or perhaps several Bills, will have to be presented to Parliament and will have to pass through all their stages, and that is the time when the final decision will have to be taken. Nothing must be agreed to by us at the moment of the transference of sovereignty which will be in derogation of our solemn undertaking.
I cannot conclude without referring to the question of the interim Government, in respect of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a full exposition. A great part of the Mission's work in India was devoted to the vain attempt to form a Coalition Cabinet acceptable alike to the Muslims and to the caste Hindus, and this Cabinet was to replace the Viceroy's Executive Council which was dismissed in order to clear the decks and make room for the new government. There was to be no change for the time being in the constitutional position. What it has led to is a temporary reversion in so far as personnel is concerned,

to a government of well-tried and experienced officials. In fact, for the moment, but only for the moment, Indian affairs have gone full circle, and we are back again at the system of 40 years ago before the Morley-Minto reforms. Everyone can see that this cannot last very long. Moreover, from the reports which I have received from India, the Muslim community feel themselves deeply, aggrieved by what they regard as a departure from the terms of Paragraph 8 of the statement of 16th June made by the Cabinet delegation and the Viceroy. This statement runs as follows:
In the event of the two major parties or either of them proving unwilling to join in the setting up of a coalition government on the above lines, it is the intention of the Viceroy to proceed with the formation of an interim government which will be as representative as possible of those willing to accept the statement of May 16th.
The Muslim League agreed to enter this, and when the Hindu Congress members refused, or it broke down on this point of procedure, I understand that the Muslim League made a violent complaint. I see the force of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that it is very difficult to form a coalition with only one party, or even to form a coalition and fill it up with civil servants and non-party figures. I believe that would be a difficulty. At the same time, there is the feeling among the Muslims of India that faith has been broken with them. I am not making that charge. On the contrary, I can see that it is a misunderstanding, but there is no doubt that there is a serious misunderstanding.

Sir S. Cripps: I would like to correct one point as regards the timing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Muslims accepted and then Congress refused. But Congress had refused before the Muslims arrived at any decision, and they knew before they arrived at a decision, that it was useless for them to arrive at a decision because already the scheme had gone.

Mr. Churchill: I am not making an accusation against the Government in the matter. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not deal with people in bad faith, and those gentlemen who were there may have been misunderstood. There has been a serious misunderstanding, but the consequences of the misunderstanding carry us forward


into the future. The General Secretary of the Muslim League has gone se far as to say that unless the situation is clarified, it would be suicidal for the League to enter into a Constituent Assembly. All this appears to raise the most formidable issues, because I can assure the Government—and those who have been to India know well—that the agreement of the Muslims to the new system affects the whole foundation of the problem. One cannot contemplate that British troops should be used to crush the Muslims in the interests of the caste Hindus. Whatever our responsibilities may be, whatever may be the day appointed on which we quit India, we must not make ourselves the agents of a caste Government, or a particular sectional Government in order to crush by armed force and modern weapons, another community which, although not so numerous, is numbered at 90 millions.
Having put these several propositions and facts on record, and being well aware of all the difficulties and of the momentous character of the steps which His Majesty's Government now propose to take, we on this side of the House are content that further discussion should stand over until the autumn, when a full opportunity for entering upon the merits of the various aspects of this problem will be given, and when we shall be possessed of fuller knowledge of the situation and of the forces at work in India than is available to us at the present time.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: It is right and fitting, of course, that the Mission, having returned to this country, should have given an account of their stewardship. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for having made such a lull statement as he did this afternoon. On this occasion, when the negotiations are still proceeding, I think the less said the better, for everyone is anxious that this great question of the future government of India should be settled amicably and satisfactorily for everyone concerned as early as possible. All I desire to say this afternoon can be confined to a sentence or two. I would like to congratulate and warmly commend each member of the Commission not only for the strenuous work which

they have done, but also for their persistence in their efforts to try to get agreement among all the Indians. These great political questions, of course, must take time, because upon them depends the government of the 400 million people occupying this sub-continent, but I would ask that all concerned should come to a decision with regard to this problem as early as possible, so that they may bend their energies towards improving the economic conditions of those 400 million people who will be under their guidance in the future.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Kendall: I would also like to pay my great respect to the Mission. I am among those hon. Members who have been out to India, and I have a considerable connection with India at the present moment. Of the various things that I have learned in India, the first is not to write a hook about it; the second is not to talk about many of the subjects which arise in India, without first having obtained full knowledge of them. I think the right hon. Gentlemen who have been out there on the Mission have accomplished one very great thing indeed. They have prevented the total breakdown of the negotiations which they went out to encourage. That is a great accomplishment, indeed. On the question of whether or not India should have been offered full freedom and self-government, in my opinion the Government were obviously right in so doing, and I am sure that is the opinion of the majority of men and women throughout the Empire. When that fact is accomplished, we sincerely hope India will still remain part of the British Empire. However, Indians must make up their own minds, after they have their own Government. I can only conclude by wishing the Government the best of luck in the completion of the present negotiations. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), that no hon. Member should, at this stage of the proceedings, in any way embarrass either the Viceroy, or the Government, in the completion of the negotiations which are under way.

5.52 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I rise to detain the House for a very few minutes, in discussing the great description of the work of the Government Mission in India, to which we have listened with profound


interest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) expressed certain views from the Opposition Front Bench, and I presume that, in expressing those views, he was speaking for his colleagues who usually sit on that bench. Never having aspired to that dizzy height, and never having had the slightest hope of reaching it if I did so aspire, I speak from the back benches, and I speak only for myself. But I believe that I carry the agreement of a considerable number of my hon. Friends who sit on this side of the House. Today we are faced with one of the greatest events in the history of the human race. Today we are considering the transfer of the power and authority wielded by our people in India for a century and a half, wielded well and truly, and in a manner which has accomplished an immense amount of work, of which we ought to be profoundly proud, for the Indian people themselves.
Let us consider for a moment what that means—the transfer of power to 400 million people, growing at the rate of five million a year, having a vast and varied country, with so many varied races, creeds and religions. In witnessing that, we are witnessing something else. We are witnessing the fulfilment of British aims in India. In that fulfilment we are carrying ourselves back to those distinguished men who, a century ago, anticipated with pride and confidence, the day which has now come. In the light of these tremendous events, I say now, how much I welcome the wise and courageous speech of the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Mission was going, how strongly I welcomed the Cabinet Mission itself, and how admirable, in my view, was the composition of that Mission, including in its ranks one not directly associated with Indian problems, who carried the plain and robust common sense of those experienced in administration and public life in this country. I pay my tribute to the unexampled patience, skill and endurance of those three colleagues of ours who went to India. Something has been said of the strain of hot weather in Delhi. How many have experienced temperatures of 114 degrees or 118 degrees in the shade? I am not certain that the transfer from Delhi to Simla did not make things more trying still. Having had some experience of India, and of the

subtlety of Indian politics, I can appreciate, perhaps more than most hon. Members, the great strain on their patience, endurance, tact and abilities which those weeks and weeks of negotiation must have entailed.
I desire to associate myself entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in the view that, if the Cabinet Mission had not gone out to India, to offer either Dominion status or independence, whichever they preferred, it might as well have stayed at home, because no possible advance could be made in the solution of the Indian problem. For the last 40 years I have looked forward to the time when India would enter the British Commonwealth and Empire as a free and equal partner. I would be happy and proud if this great offer had been made, that she should opt for inclusion in the Commonwealth and Empire, with free and equal status with the other free nations in that Commonwealth. If she prefers independence in treaty relations with Great Britain I, for one, would never dream of standing in the way of complete fulfilment and recognition of that. Hers is the choice, and hers is the freedom. Let us accept that choice and freedom, confidently and wholeheartedly. We would welcome her association in our great Commonwealth as a free and equal partner. Looking back on the work of the Mission, I think it has worked well. The outline of policy which they themselves made when they could not come to complete agreement between parties was the only one suited to the special position of India at that time, because it preserved the essential unity of India, which is our great creation, at the same time giving security to the Mohamedan community, with their cultural, religious and economic interests, which they so rightly demand.
The setting up of a Constituent Assembly was the only way of placing squarely on the shoulders of the Indian people the responsibility of framing their own Constitution, and giving them effective means of carrying that into effect. What should be our attitude in this House at the present time? It should not be one of looking at niggling facts here and there, or of asking minor questions and pressing minor questions. It should be one of resolute confidence in facing the


future. Our attitude should be one of good will, of cheer, of hope, of cooperation and of determination to use every atom of influence we possess, and every item of help we can give, going straight forward to that goal, of full stature amongst the nations for India and a close association. In that way we can, with full agreement among ourselves, fulfil the splendid glory of our connection with that great country during the century and a half that we have been linked with her.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I would like to say, at the outset, how much we appreciate the tone and spirit of approach of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). I believe he has realised the general position of world politics, the particular aims of British power at this moment in relation to India, and problems in the Far East, far more acutely and poignantly than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The right hon. Member for Woodford is living in days that have long passed. He is the adolescent imperialist bereft of power. So far as I understood his speech, he does not want a settlement in India. I must say quite frankly that I thought his speech was largely designed to provoke and stir up the minorities in order that the path to freedom for India may be made even more difficult than it might otherwise be. In any case, I am sure that it will be regarded in certain quarters in India as a mischievous speech designed to prevent progress, and, therefore, I hope that it will have no effect in this country.
We cannot in this Debate go into the details of the plan adumbrated by the Mission. I should say that it is indeed a very subtle and resilient plan, which fits in not only with the position in India, but with the position of Britain in the realm of world politics. We cannot afford at this juncture to offend the Muslims. We have to recognise—and the plan does recognise—the position of the Muslims throughout the Middle and Near East, right down to Palestine. But I hope that the minorities will not be so safeguarded or over safeguarded as to prevent the voice of the majority having its rule in India. There is a danger at the moment that an over-obsession with the rights of minorities may yet spoil an eventual settlement, and the whole of the plan for India.
I do not want to say anything which would prolong the discussion or hamper the Government, if any words of mine are capable of that, but I am disturbed about compulsory groupings. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty, who I understand is to reply on behalf of the Government, make it clear, first of all, whether there will still be scope for free access or entry into the groupings, or whether they are to be compulsory groupings? That I find a great obstacle to the settlement. Then, it is not clear even now as to what the powers of the National Assembly will be. I will put my question in this form: Is the National Assembly to be free or not free as a sovereign body? Will the National Assembly have all the full rights of democracy, will it allow for the free play of democracy, or is it to be hamstrung again by any communal difficulties or restrictions? I hope that when the Government spokesman replies he will make that clear.
My final words are these. We all hope and pray that India may be free. I am one of those who do not believe 'that Indians, it left to themselves, will not be able to settle the Indian problem. I have read something of the stirring up of the communal differences in India. The Muslim League was a project of British imperialism, designed for the purpose, as history shows quite clearly. One has only to read the correspondence of Lord Morley and the Earl of Minto at the time to see that it was designed to perpetuate the old rule of "divide and conquer." I hope that we are now passing beyond that, and that we shall see to it that no communal differences shall stand in the way. They need not stand in the way. Indians in Britain have stayed together, have worked together, and have attended social gatherings together, and the same is true in India, where one finds Muslim and Hindu students all mixed together. There has been a good deal of artificial stimulation of communal differences, and I am glad that the Government have made some approach towards, as it were, melting them down.
Congress has made every sacrifice to meet the present situation, but Congress cannot give up certain vital principles, especially one principle which every Socialist must agree with, namely, twat they will not brook any electoral distinctions between communal interests and communal rights. Neither will they brook


the idea that they do not represent the whole of the Indian people, independent of their religious beliefs. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah have got everything, indeed even more than their legitimate rights, out of the plan, I hope that the Muslim League will not be bolstered up by various interests in this country to destroy any hope of success. I wish the full fruition of the Mission that was sent out, and I hope that in the near future we shall have a free and democratic India within our own Empire.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I have always feared that a Debate upon India at this juncture might do more harm than good, and the speech to which we have just listened emphasises my fears and seems to justify them. I hope that nothing I shall say will give any ammunition to any of the enemies of the peace, the progress and the good of India. I think it right, however, that some of us who are interested in India—I myself formed part of the Parliamentary Delegation earlier in the year—should have an opportunity of expressing their thanks to the Cabinet Mission for what they have achieved, and for repeating their good will towards the people of India. I thank the Cabinet Mission for one great achievement, which was only just touched upon by the President of the Board of Trade, and it is this: they have set at rest, once and for all, the belief that was prevalent in India until quite recently that we in this country were willing to let Indian failure to agree he an excuse for not making further constitutional progress. That is an immense achievement, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. That alone would justify their mission.
But do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that the Mission has succeeded, for if we do, we shall be unpleasantly surprised and shocked at future developments. I do not wish to detract for one moment from their great achievements, but their failure to bring about an interim Government was one of the most disastrous occasions in the history of India, and I regret it more than I can say. I do not, however, rise for the purpose of criticising the Cabinet Mission for their failures. I made my own position perfectly clear on 15th March and I think that everything I said on that occasion

was justified. I rise for quite another purpose. The House must be aware that in every civilised community there are two aspects of government. There are the flesh, the blood, and the organs of political institutions; but within, supporting them, there is the skeleton, the framework of administration. Perhaps, in India, rather more than in any other country of the world, the administration is important.
I called attention on 15th March to the fact that the administration of India was gravely weakened—the whole body of administration. I am not just referring to the Europeans; I am referring to every member of the administration, of whatever race or creed. They had a severe strain put upon them during the war. Political developments have caused the gravest loss of confidence, and cause uncertainty about the future. The efficiency of the administration is gravely impaired; the reputation of the administration is gravely impaired; and the strength of the administration is gravely impaired. Consider that, on the one hand. Consider, on the other, that Indian politicians, for months and years, have been sowing the whirlwind; and someone has to reap it. Consider the high hopes that have been brought about by the present situation. I want to warn the House, seriously, that this is the calm before the storm, that the next few months will be the most critical through which India has passed; and yet His Majesty's Government have given no indication of their awareness of the fact that the administration needs revivifying 'and strengthening. It may well be, even, that we may be called back during the Recess by grave events in India.
I do beseech His Majesty's Government to pay the closest attention to this need for strengthening the framework of the administration. For whatever Constitution may emerge, whatever constitutional dispensation may rule the Indian peoples, the administration will not change, the personnel will not change. Everybody will know, everybody who has recently returned from India brings the news, of the most serious apprehensions of what may happen in the next few months. It is certainly possible, if not probable, that there may be a grave breakdown. I think that is the background in front of which we should face the whole of the problem that faces India today. Let nothing in this country be said to dissipate the feeling of


good will that has been propagated by the Cabinet Mission. Every single Member on this side of the House has nothing but a warm feeling for India and I believe that reciprocal good feeling of this country towards this country exists in India in a large measure amongst all classes.
This is not the end of a volume of Indian history; it is only the end of a chapter; and in the chapters that will come there will be more need than ever for understanding and good will towards India, and for the greatest possible courage on the part of the Government. I assure the Government, speaking, I believe, for others of my party besides myself, that we shall be in no hurry to treat this as a party matter. I have always thought, myself, that India is the greatest single responsibility with which we in this House are charged. It is certainly the subject affecting the greatest numbers. I do beg the House, every Member of the House, and, in particular, of the Government, to address his mind seriously to what is going to happen in the next few months. From these Benches we send out a message of good will towards India, and to the Cabinet Mission we give a message of gratitude for having dissipated that point of view to which I have referred. To the Government we say, "Be courageous, and we will support you."

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I would commend very warmly to the House the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). He, as I have, has felt 118 in the shade at Delhi, and higher temperatures down South in hotter parts of India, and apart from that he has had 30 or 40 years of experience of Indian politics. The result is that his views seem diametrically opposed to the views of the leader of his party. I am glad to see it is so. I also endorse his views of what our Mission has done in India, and his praise for the Prime Minister's policy. I have still connections with India, and I can assure the House that, at the time the Mission went out to India, things were extremely dangerous. If the Mission has done nothing else, but merely allayed the tension of that time, then it has done remarkably valuable service. The Leader of the Opposition has blamed the Government far going beyond the Cripps offer of Dominion status, which was condi-

tional upon agreement amongst Indians; and he said that was the only possible means of a "happy and peaceful solution." I profoundly disagree with every word he has said, and I endorse entirely the statesmanship of the Prime Minister who has said, "You can have swaraj" —which I would translate responsible self-government—" or you can have puma swaraj, complete independence." That was first-class statesmanship; that is the only possible approach that will bring a "peaceful and happy solution." I wish to express this view, that the time is long past when we can, directly or indirectly, rule India without consent. Therefore, we cannot, by continuing our rule in any shape or form without the consent of the people, get security for minorities, about whom the right hon. Gentleman said so much, or even majorities. If we intend to continue our rule in India without the consent of the peoples of India, there will he no hope of peace or prosperity for anybody.
It is perfectly true that this Mission, in spite of the wonderful work they did in bringing parties together, left a lot of things unsettled. The relationship of the Indian States to the rest is unsettled. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that there is a proposal to abrogate our treaties with the Princes. What is happening is that the Princes are coming together of themselves and offering to come to a peaceful solution with British India. There is no doubt about it, the question of the Untouchables, or depressed classes, has not been solved. Then there is also the question of the gallant Sikhs which has not been solved.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has rightly stressed one important failure, and that is the failure to set up an interim or provisional Government. Speaking as a friend of India, who knows the country and the needs of the peoples, I would appeal to Indian leaders, from the Floor of this House, to set up that interim Government. There is to be a Constituent Assembly set up. It will take time to function and to evolve a Constitution. It will take time—years, perhaps—to bring that Constitution into effect. Is it possible, during all that period, to carry on with a civil service Government, however efficient and able it may be? I appeal to the peoples of India, and as a friend


of India—the friends of India are numerous in this House, on both sides—to set aside trivialities, and to set up that interim Indian Government, because it is essential. I have not the slightest intention—although I have been mixed up with similar constitutional problems in the East—of trying to tell Indians what they should do. It is for the Indians themselves to do it. But I would impress upon them, that the destiny of one-fifth of the human race is in the hands of the political leaders of India. It is an enormous responsibility. The eyes of the world are upon them. They must not fail.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I was one of those who were sceptical about the success of the Cabinet Mission before it went to India. I abstained from expressing my doubts at that time because I thought it would be anything but helpful to have done so at that juncture. I am very glad indeed that I was wrong, and I 'should like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on the patience and tact which they have shown under very trying circumstances, in obtaining at least the measure of success which has attended their efforts. I do not wholly share the view that the offer of 1942 could with advantage or with success have been repeated in 1946. After all, the offer of 1942 was rejected at that time, and it would hardly seem worth while for a Cabinet Mission to go out to India four years later in order to repeat an offer which had proved unacceptable.
I have been interested in this controversy ever since I went to India as a professional politician in 1925. That was when Dominion status was being asked for by the Indians. I very well remember that the late Lord Lothian and the late Lord Reading were most reluctant to agree to that formula at the Round Table Conference. I cannot see that any useful purpose would have been served in 1946, by asking that that preliminary stage be passed through, when it has been 'admitted in 1942 that the Statute of Westminster carries with it the right of secession. It is not possible for anyone at this moment to say to what extent there has been full agreement between the two parties, but it is certainly a very

substantial step forward that they are prepared to meet in the Constituent Assembly. An unexpected advance has certainly been made when the two parties have agreed to meet in the Constituent Assembly.
There is one matter about which I feel great anxiety. I am very sorry indeed that the result of the negotiations has been that there should now be an interim Government consisting almost exclusively of officials. I have been anxious that not only responsibility for the future Constitution of India, but also responsibility for maintaining law and order, and dealing with all the vast and difficult administrative problems which follow upon a war, should be fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of Indian politicians. For so long they have been trying to shuffle out of this responsibility, and I should have been much happier in my mind if the Indian politicians had now to tackle these problems.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said one thing in his speech which I confess I had not understood before, namely, that it is open, at any time, for the present Government of officials to be replaced by another caretaker Government consisting of Indian politicians. I thought it was intended that this Government should carry on until the Constituent Assembly had come to its final conclusions. I welcome, therefore, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said today, and I hope that before long, the Government of officials will be replaced by a Government of Indian politicians. I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), who has had long experience of India. At the present time we not only feel good will towards India, but we must be prepared to go forward, not raising any small pettifogging difficulties, but in the hope and confidence that a great step forward has been taken, and that India will respond to the opportunities and responsibilities which now await her.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: We on this side appreciate the fine remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). I believe that it would be wrong at this juncture to introduce into this Debate any jarring note. The most important thing that should go out to India today is a message that all in this honour-


able House are really concerned about the destiny of India, and that we put India's destiny above party politics. It is because of this that I welcomed some of the speeches which I have heard from hon. Members on the other side. I associate myself with the praise and congratulations which have been offered to our Ministers from both sides. I, also, have had the pleasure and privilege of being in India. I visited that country this February, and I met various leaders of Indian opinion. I should like Indians to know that we in Britain are concerned, not so much about the politicians or princes of India, as with the standard of living of the masses of the people. We hope that as the result of this political agreement it will be possible to raise that standard of living. There are many difficulties facing us, and it will need a calm approach to the problem, outside the bitterness of party conflict. In other words, we are concerned more with the power shovel in India than with power Politics. We are concerned with ribbons of steel and asphalt, water and static machinery, which can uplift the standard of living for these people. That is what I thought as I walked down the streets of Calcutta, and saw the possibilities which existed. I met one of our foremost businessmen in Karachi, and I had a discussion with him. Great possibilities exist for closer affinity with the Indians through avenues of trade, rather than through avenues of power politics.
This issue is fundamental, because the whole of Asia is on the move. India is the kingpin in any design for the future, because what happens to India within the next few years will control the destiny of the Pacific Ocean and the entire Far East. We must have this in mind in a Debate on India when we are discussing the destiny of one-fifth of the people on the earth. Labour can claim something, and I hope that the people of India will see that by this effort on behalf of our Ministers, the Labour Party are endeavouring to approach this problem on an entirely new basis. If we have done nothing else in this present Session, the Labour Government have this to be proud of, that we have given the opportunity for new development in India and in the Far East. I think that that one act would justify the Labour Party coming into power at the last Election.

6.30 p.m.

Lord John Hope: I want to say a word or two in support of the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), when he expressed the hope that we, on this side of the House, would not make this a party matter. Indeed, the general wish has been expressed throughout the House that this question of India should not be made a party matter. Of course, it should not. More than that, it cannot be. We are as pledged in our party as are any other hon. Members in this House, and it is our pride that we are so pledged, to help India on the road to self-government by agreement, as soon as we possibly can. That issue is perfectly clear. One may feel strongly about this or that point in the Cabinet Mission's Report, but this is not the Debate in which it would be right, or in which there is any time, to go into many points of detail. That would seem to me to belong more to the October Debate.
I must say, however, that I cannot bring myself to believe that there is very much in the point as to the difference between the 1942 offer and the 1946 offer. It is only too easy to fail to see the wood for the trees and more so, perhaps, in the matter of India than in any other matter. The broad picture is just as obvious to the Indians as it is to us, and to me it does not seem to make the slightest difference which way this matter is looked at—whether the country becomes, on paper, a Dominion for a short time while she decides whether to stay in or go out; or whether she is offered a Constitution on the understanding that she can go in or go out. That seems to me a small point. About the other anxieties that are felt by hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), I think it is unfair to call them small points. The right hon. Member for Woodford is worried about the question of the minorities, which is a very important point. I do not think that the 1942 versus the 1946 point is in anything like the same category as that, and I dissociate myself from any attempt to make it so. I wish now to touch upon the contribution which this party has made. We have played our part in this great evolution. The President of the Board of Trade said in his speech that


every step since the first world war, and I think that he might also have said immediately before it——

Sir S. Cripps: I said before and since.

Lord John Hope: Every step before and since the first world war has been towards self-government. Therefore, I deprecate any attempt on the part of any hon. Gentleman opposite to claim that this is a tremendous step, the like of which has never been seen before. It is simply a logical link in the chain; so do not let them start any nonsense of that sort.
Finally, I wish to join with all those who have expressed their thanks to the Mission for what it has tried to do, and for what it has done, and to associate myself with their good wishes and prayers that the people of India may bring this great business to a happy conclusion. I hope also that those who lead Indian opinion will rise to their great responsibilities, which are now imminently upon them, and that being so, I hope that I shall not be unduly provocative in expressing the opinion that the Indian leaders will not be showing the responsibility which they should show, if they allow themselves to be led into making speeches like that made by Pandit Nehru a week or two ago. That sort of speech, I feel, cannot have any but unfortunate consequences. There is ahead a great task both for India and for Britain, and if both are going to rise to their responsibilities, both have to be prudent and careful.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Gallaeher: It is 20 years since a very prominent leader of the Conservative Party, the late Lord Brentford, declared: "We have won India by the sword, and by the sword we will hold it," to the cheers of the Conservatives whom he addressed. It is now obvious that it is impossible to hold India by the sword. It is also obvious, from the speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), that he would wish to hold it by some other means. That is Conservative policy. I would say to the Government that if they want the full cooperation of Indians in the days that lie ahead, it is important for India and for this country to withdraw the caretaker Government and withdraw all interference, putting the full

responsibility on the Congress Party with the Moslem League and other parties to form a Government. H they do that, they will raise a spirit in India which will bring about the mutual cooperation which we desire, and which is so essential for the future of India and of this country.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but certain arguments have been raised which make it necessary for me to say a few words. I was never satisfied that it would be possible to have a satisfactory short Debate on the India question, and I remain of that conviction, after listening to the Debate today. I do not find myself in the enviable position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the Debate, and who very naturally took a long time—over one hour—to explain the case for the Mission. He referred to a great many details, which I think could be answered seriatim in a speech of equivalent length—which I should have liked to deliver, but have no intention of delivering tonight. This means that we must leave many of the issues over to the autumn. I think that some hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who, standing at this Box, deliberately said that he was not going into the merits of these issues in this Debate. He simply established certain positions which he desired to take up, and I think it unfortunate that speeches have been made, which have gone into the merits of some of these issues, and that hon. Members have tried to argue those merits one way or another. If we are to take that line, there can he no end to a Debate like this, and we cannot have satisfaction.
The Opposition agreed, deliberately, to curtail their remarks, on this occasion, upon a matter which is nearer to the hearts of many of us than any other subject in the world. We did so in order to give an opportunity to the Constituent Assembly to get going, and so that it should not be embarrassed by our remarks. The Government cannot have the best of both worlds. They cannot, at one moment, try to make out that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side are going into the merits, and then go into the merits.


themselves; and, at the same time, expect us to curtail our observations in order to give them an opportunity of working out their policy. I say that definitely, because, otherwise, it would be putting the Opposition in an unfair position by not giving us an opportunity to develop our remarks as we would wish to do.
The other points are very small and I need not go into them. I do not propose to go into the lengthy question of opting for Commonwealth status or independence straight away, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford simply established the fact that we were on this occasion differing from the position taken up in 1942 by the Cripps Mission. I do, however, propose to take up a remark made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) in a speech which was animated by the right sentiments and with which generally I agree. However, he used a remark to the effect that minor questions and minor criticisms had been brought forward. Let us take the question of the depressed classes—the offer to the minorities. It has always been a feature of British rule and my own earnest desire ever since I was on the Franchise Committee with Lord Lothian—than whom India had no better friend—to secure for the depressed classes seats of their own. That was agreed between Lord Lothian and myself and other Members of the Committee. To refer to the decision of the Cabinet Mission to cast all the seats for the depressed classes into the general seats, as a minor question, is really an abuse of the British language. It is part of the pride of the British achievements in India that we made efforts to raise the status of the poor and depressed classes. We may not have been entirely successful, but the fact is that the decision of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to cast the whole depressed seats into the general seats is a retrograde step, and that raises a major question. It is a matter, one would have thought, of the greatest importance to the Labour movement, standing as it claims to do for those who have the least opportunity to express themselves, and seeking to raise their status.
That is only one sample of the sort of thing which we shall have to consider in detail in the autumn. These are not matters affecting the one main principle, namely, helping India towards self-government. There is a moral position to con-

sider and the important moral position we on this side of the House desire to encourage in India is, as I expressed it in the Debate on 15th March, to encourage India to achieve self-government. We want her to achieve self-government and not alone to see British rule raised, but, in the words of two well-known authorities who have written a book on this subject, to see the fulfilment of British rule. The fulfilment of British rule means the carrying out of certain obligations. I feel sure that the Cabinet Mission were subjected to great stresses and difficulties, and no doubt they feel they have done their best. But there are many matters to which in the autumn we shall have to give attention, and not least are the questions of the minorities, the Indian States and the carrying out of the word of Britain, so that we not only achieve some form of self-government for India but also carry out our obligations.

6.44 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am quite sure, generally speaking, that my colleagues will be grateful to the House of Commons for the general manner in which they have dealt with the Debate today. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who has just spoken, felt that perhaps we had not kept quite to the bargain made through the usual channels. I do not think we have departed from it, and I think the House of Commons would have been terribly disappointed if the report of my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to what happened in 3½months' negotiation was in any way truncated and not properly understood by the House. All we asked was that, after a full report had been given to the House, we should have a Debate which would be as brief as possible. I think every Member of the House so far has fulfilled that. I have no complaint to make of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), because we expected that that would be the kind of speech which he would make, and the only comment I would offer upon it is this, that it seems to me that, apart from the gallant defence of him made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, his col-


leagues behind him seem to disagree with him.

Mr. Churchill: No.

Mr. Alexander: All those who have spoken seem to disagree with him. I am bound to say on the point referred to by the hon. Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope) that there is really no effective answer to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford really suggested that we had taken an almost revolutionary departure from the basis of the offer in 1942 in that we have not offered purely Dominion status, but complete independence. We have expressed the hope that the Indian people might decide to have Dominion status, but we have also made it clear that they are free to choose to have complete independence if they will. Is that really out of conformity with the offer of 1942? Who really suggested that it was?

Mr. Churchill: I did.

Mr. Alexander: If the right hon. Gentleman does suggest that, I find it difficult to understand why the statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India during the period of the Caretaker Government in 1945. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was at that time Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India made it quite clear at that time that—
 the offer of March, 1942, stands in its entirety. That offer was based on two main principles. The first is that no limit is set to India's freedom to decide for herself her own destiny, whether as a free member and partner in the British Commonwealth or even without it.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1945: Vol. 411, c. 1838.]

Mr. Churchill: Through the process of the Cripps offer of 1942, which implied the setting up of Dominion status and then the decision to be taken by the newly created Dominion Government.

Mr. Alexander: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That brings me into complete line with the hon. Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles, who says that to say we have made some great divergence from the 1942 offer is really splitting hairs. What is really the difference in the negotiations of the kind we have been trying to con-

duct in saying: "Will you choose to be within the British Commonwealth now, will you choose independence now, or will you, in a very short time, having been given the opportunity, choose to opt out?"

Mr. Churchill: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again but I have been tackled on this question. There is all the difference in the world. The Statute of Westminster allows every Dominion the right to secede and in the case of a great many Dominions there would be no difficulty about it, if they decided no one would raise any question. There may be, however, great differences of opinion if one of the Dominions considered a proposal to secede, and that might exercise a great deterrent upon the decision which the Dominion would take. My hope would be that such a deterrent would have the effect of making the Dominion unitedly decide to remain within the British Commonwealth, a course which, I hope, we have not altogether brushed aside. However, it is another matter when we try to short-circuit the process and say, "Take independence now." That is what the Government are going to get, and they are going to get it very soon. They should not blind themselves to the idea. There is going to be no hesitation on the part of those with whom the Government are dealing in taking full and immediate independence. That is what is going to happen. I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope), but every person in the House is entitled to express his or her own view in these matters. It is a well-known fact that I have differed in past years from the line taken by the Conservative Government in this Parliament and I do not think we should have been in this miserable plight if my advice had been taken then.

Mr. Alexander: The great thing about our House is that people are entitled to their own opinions and to express them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my quoting opinions expressed from behind him in support of my position.

Mr. Churchill: It is a great advantage to the right hon. Gentleman to do it.

Mr. Alexander: I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is the great concern of many of us to ex-


tend in every possible way we can that great circle of free, but completely independent, nations within the British Commonwealth. No one would welcome it more, as was explained so clearly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech on 15th March, than those who sit on these benches. But events have travelled since 1942, and from the years before, and it cannot be controverted that if we had approached the situation from that point of view it would have meant that we would have come back with a similar failure, and in highly charged circumstances that certainly did not exist in the Spring of 1942.
I regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak as if our offer of 1942 was made only because the enemy were at the gate, and were about to invade. That is the very kind of complaint that the Indians, who want their independence, always make in their expressions of doubt about our bona fides. I do not think that all Members of the Government of 1942 believed that we made that offer to India simply on that basis. At the present time, we have had to deal with a situation where, as my right hon. and learned Friend said today, there was a political awakening throughout the world, and especially in the East. If some attempt had not been made to get the agreement we have so far secured in India, I am certain that we should have been faced with uprisings, bloodshed and disturbances in India at the moment, and with a future military commitment that nobody could at present forecast. If that were to happen in the present state of the world it would be very difficult to defend, even in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's own promises to the country and the world when he made his great mission to Newfoundland, and formulated the principles of the Atlantic Charter.
I pass from that to another point, because I do not wish to delay the House in view of the important Debate which we have corning on shortly. I would like to say a word or two about minorities. The kind of argument which the right hon. Gentleman used was that this was the position: that if you put all the people comprising minorities in India together, and added them up, they would make a majority in India and, therefore, that would be a reason for not accepting the statement by the Prime

Minister on 15th March, that, ultimately, minorities ought not to be allowed to prevent the progress of majorities. In fact, if we were to take the total number of the minorities in India—the Muslims, the depressed classes, the Indian Christians, the Sikhs, and the Anglo-Indians, it would be possible to make that kind of case, but it would be possible to subtract from them millions of people who are already in, or behind, the Congress Party. My experience of the last three and a half months demonstrates clearly that the majority of the depressed classes, for instance, are behind the Congress Party.——

Mr. Nicholson: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not resent what I am going to say, but he is now departing from the spirit of the Debate that ought to take place on this subject.

Mr. Alexander: I have been most anxious not to depart from the kind of spirit we want to develop. What I am anxious to do is not to let the impression be obtained by the depressed classes in India, with regard to minorities, because of what the right hon. Gentleman said, as being a matter of not much concern to the Government or to the House I have not finished my argument——

Mr. Churchill: I am very glad to hear it.

Mr. Alexander: If I speak vigorously I hope the House will excuse me.

Sir S. Reed: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position in regard to the scheduled castes quite clear? Under the communal award of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, which he made in 1934, their position in the electorate was secured. When that award was violently disturbed by Mr. Gandhi's fast, the whole protection which the authorities wished to give them was swept aside, and they were drawn into the Congress net.

Mr. Alexander: My experience of the last three and a half months, in the full light of the legislation of 1934, and the knowledge of the Poona Pact, demonstrates to me that the majority of the depressed classes in India are certainly with, and behind, Congress. Congress has secured from the depressed classes a very large number of very efficient candidates


for representation in the Assembly. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument today was firmly based. I want to assure him that the whole reason for the inclusion of paragraph 4 in our statement of 25th May was because Members of this House generally have been concerned to get the largest amount of protection possible for the minorities in India, upon any cession of power taking place. It is because of that that we put in the particular words which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has quoted in the Debate. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) to raise these matters in detail when we have a further Debate in October.
I agreed very much, however, with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the great voluntary effort of 2,000,000 Indians in the great struggle in which they were engaged with us, and many other nations of the world, for liberty and freedom. While we agreed with him on that, we on this side of the House and, I am sure, Members on all sides, would not be offering independence and freedom to India today simply because the Indians have done us a great military service from time to time—although we have welcomed and admired that service so much. We offer it to them on the basis of it being our own birthright, a birthright which we desire to see accorded to men and women in all parts of the world. Although we are very much misunderstood from time to time in different parts of the world, the ultimate end of British rule should be to bring independence and freedom to the people with whom we have been associated. It is in the light of that, and in the promotion of that spirit, that our Mission went to India. We believe that we have got to the position where, although many difficulties remain to be overcome, provided the main parties in that State will combine in working the constitutional machinery which has been set up, there is no reason why we should not make substantial and rapid progress towards complete freedom for that great sub-Continent, to whose people our nation wishes nothing but good, and desires that they shall become a great power for good in the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House takes note of the Command Papers relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet Mission to India, and awaits a further opportunity of debate in the Autumn.

BREAD (RATIONING) ORDER

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I beg to move.
 That the Bread (Rationing) Order, 5946, dated 11th July, 1946 (S.R, &amp; O., 1946, No.1100), a copy of which was presented on 15th July, be annulled.
We have given the most careful consideration to, and we have had long discussions among ourselves upon, all the statements and figures which have been given to us on this subject by His Majesty's Government, and as the result we cannot feel convinced that the imposition of bread rationing is necessary on 21st July. Unless some new fact is disclosed which we do not now know, we shall be bound to vote against the imposition of this heavy, awkward, galling burden at this time. I will now proceed to examine seriatim the reasons which have so far been vouchsafed to us. The Minister of Food—[An HON. MEMBER: "Here is your man."] I am glad to see him safely out of the oven. The Minister's case has rested upon the state of the pipeline of 31st August, 1946. The "pipeline" is his own expression, a very good expression, and it is on the state of that chain of moving supplies on 31st August that he rests his case. We are told that the pipeline will contain only eight weeks' supply, and that we use 100,000 tons a week—actually, I think we use a little more, 112,000 tons—whereas we have worked in the war to ten and a half weeks' supply, and made that a necessary precautionary essential. We are told that less than eight weeks' supply in the pipeline will endanger distribution, at any rate in particular localities.
Somewhere below the figure of 800,000 tons—these are the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food—there would come a point where the distribution system of the country, first of the wheat, and then of the flour after it had been milled, would begin to creak and groan, and finally break down. We cannot, he argues, run that risk. But by


31st August we reap the new home harvest. At least between 200,000 and 300,000 tons of this harvest will be garnered in September—and perhaps more may be accelerated by special measures—and the rest, amounting in the end to over 1,700,000 tons, can be garnered and delivered to the millers, as may be needed from October onwards, by arrangements which can easily be made now. We have not been told what other supplies will reach us from abroad in August and September. In September, the Minister is counting on 250,000 tons from our own harvest. So we need import only about 150,000 tons to maintain the pipeline above the danger point.
Why should this be so difficult? In September, 1944, a bad year, with the war going on, we imported 292,000 tons of wheat across the U-boat blockade. In September last year, we imported 318,000 tons of wheat. Why should we not be able to import 150,000 tons of wheat in September? Have we left it too late? If so, tell us so. In matters of this kind it is much better to tell the truth. This country is not afraid of facing ugly facts. We would not be here now if we had shrunk from that. I must say that, so far as I am aware—I have endeavoured to get all the information possible from those who know about the state of this trade—there is no difficulty in importing 150,000 tons, and indeed, far more than that, in September. After September we have the whole of the home harvest within our reach to draw on as we think fit, and although the problem of our bread supply may remain, its urgency will have vanished, Spring may bring other troubles, but the urgency will have vanished. The latest published harvest estimates of the four great exporting countries—Canada, the United States of America, the Argentine and Australia—are now declared to be 10,000,000 tons in excess of the statistics given in the April White Paper. Therefore, on the facts now before us—I emphasise "now before us" because it is the crux on which I rest my argument—it is clear that any imminent danger wilt have passed by 31st August. Why, then, is there this need of bread rationing on 31st July? That is the point we have to settle tonight.
There could hardly have been selected a more inconvenient date for the introduction of bread rationing, because so

many people are away from their homes, or about to go away, on their annual and hard-won holidays. I will speak of the difficulties and confusion of this scheme, so hurriedly conceived, in a few minutes. But I return to the point which I am making—What is the reason for bringing this scheme into operation on 21st July? It cannot, certainly, be on account of the valuable savings which are to be made in bread consumption by the declared scale of rationing during the five weeks involved. What are those savings? They are estimated by the Government now as a maximum—I am taking the best figure for them—of seven per cent. of consumption in a whole year. In the five weeks concerned, the saving amounts only to about 40,000 tons, or one-fifth of the 200,000 tons that the Lord President of the Council agreed to forgo when he visited the United States of America. The Lord President agreed to forgo two weeks' supply—the critical two weeks' supply. Now, to save less than three days' supply, we are to take upon ourselves all the inconveniences and friction of the present scheme of bread rationing beginning on Sunday next. I cannot believe that this petty saving is the true reason of the Government's serious decision.
Let us, then, continue our search for that reason. The next explanation which presents itself for the Government's anxiety to start rationing is that they anticipate a serious long-term shortage of wheat, and desire to prepare for it. The proposed ration scale, yielding a saving of only seven per cent. per annum, would certainly be no remedy for a serious long-term shortage of world wheat. It was for that reason that, when nearly one month ago the Minister of Food announced his intention to ration bread, I immediately formed the impression that cuts far more formidable than would be enforced at the beginning would be imposed upon us later on, once the rationing scheme was in working order.
I do not think that the Minister of Food was entitled to be vexed with are or surprised that I came to that conclusion, because I remember that the Lord President had said on 31st May that, of course, if it should become necessary for him—that is, the Minister of Food—to economise in consumption then dais machinery would be there ready for the purpose. I thought that meant that it


would be put up on a certain scale and, if serious economies were necessary, it would be turned on, as it would have to be turned on. I have been given a quotation, which I did not hear with my own ears, but which I have verified, in which he said on the same day:
The purpose is, as my right hon. Friend "—
the Lord President of the Council—
has said already, above all, to give us control of the situation… we are sailing… into a storm area… but we are determined to go into that storm area with the capacity and the ability to shorten sail "—
in this connection "shorten sail" means to cut the ration—
 at the shortest notice if that proves necessary.''— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1946; Vol. 423, C. 1575.]
The right hon. Gentleman, who has had so many burdens come upon him at the beginning of his career as a Minister of Cabinet rank, resented what I said, and since then he has given repeated assurances that the scales contained in the Order now before us—which we are praying this House now to annul—are the worst we have to expect. I have certainly understood, and I think there are repeated quotations to confirm, that he has said that they are the worst we have to expect, but if I am wrong by all means let us be told. Ought we to reach this point in this long discussion and not know a thing like that?

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey) indicated dissent.

Mr. Churchill: We have an uncertain shake of the head from the Minister. The assurances have been given all over the country, and repeated everywhere, that this is the maximum scale of cuts that is to be imposed—those contained in the Schedule to this Order. Where do we stand? I was very much struck with that uncertain lateral movement of the Minister's head. Does the right hon. Gentleman know where he is? [HON. MEMBERS:" Yes."] Then, rejoicing in that happy position, let him tell us where we are. Where do we stand on this question of future reductions of the present bread ration scale? Why be afraid to tell the British public the truth? If we have to take it, we can take it, but a Government that is afraid to tell people what they are going to be up against, will

not get the confidence of those people enduring the hardships. I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) taking her place and hope that she has completely recovered from the distressing accident about which we were all much concerned.
The Minister has told us in the House that there is no question of the ration being reduced. Moreover, far from threatening further cuts, he has hinted and more than hinted at the early removal of bread rationing altogether. Where do we stand? Some doubt was thrown, I admit, on these assurances by the speech of the Minister of Agriculture last Saturday when he said:
 If there should be any possibility of the United States defaulting on the 467,000 tons of wheat we are expecting from them, or of the British farmers failing to deliver the 570,000 tons for which they have been asked—
I suppose within a certain time—
 our bread rationing would not only be necessary but the allocation, which is bare enough, would have to be reduced.
What is the position of the Government? I ask the Minister of Food, or the Prime Minister, specifically here and now across the Table, whether they adhere to their statement that the scale of bread rations in this Order now before us will not be further reduced? Is that true or is it not true? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I ask the Prime Minister, Is it true or is it not true that what he is proposing now is a final ration scale so far as the immediate year to which we are concerned is involved? Is it or is it not? The Prime Minister cannot answer; he may think it very wily tactics at the head of a great majority to take refuge in the obscure recesses of silence, but out of doors people want to know what are the facts and what is the true position. Right hon. Gentlemen have no right to reproach us with opposing them upon this matter, when they cannot answer and when they think it better to sit glum and mum, in the hope that the storm will blow over. I call the attention of the House to the fact that no answer has been given as to whether these ration scales are to be decreased or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait."] After all, this has all been talked about for a month, and so many pledges have been given to us that one would have thought that the Minister


could say, "I stick to what I have said; there will be no increased cuts and, more than that, I hope to take off rationing." Does the Minister run away from that now or can he say "Yes" or "No "? Already these triumphant leaders of victorious democracy along the bench opposite are far on the road to becoming a line of extinct volcanoes. There is not even a little geyser to show that they are alive.
After saying that, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown a great deal of doubt upon the statement which he made that there will be no additional cut in the ration. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as he gets this system into operation, is going to turn the screw sharp and hard, and put on very much more serious rationing, with much more severe cuts, then that at least is an explanation. It is a sad and sombre explanation, but at least it is something one can understand. If it is not true that rations are to be cut more severely, we are irresistibly driven to the conclusion that no case has been made for the institution of bread rationing. If we are to be told that this is the prelude to further cuts, and that this is to give facilities for shortening sail, to any extent that may be necessary, the Government may be greatly censured, but nevertheless, the measures that they put forward may be the only ones possible for us in our unfortunate position. That is the second point I make. Do the Government stand by their statement that this Order contains the worst we have to expect in the next six months or so? I suppose we shall get an answer when the right hon. Gentleman speaks.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey indicated assent.

Mr. Churchill: Why it should be kept a secret till then, I do not know I only asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to keep his word or not, but if he likes to reserve himself on that point, very well. We contrast the smallness of the saving with the immense amount of hardship, and we are left wondering what is the reason for this violent act, unless there is to be a big increase in the cut. On the statements which have been made to us, the need is not apparent, and if the need be proved, the remedy appears wholly in-

effective. It is like using a steamhammer to crack a nut when there is nothing in the nut. That is the impression we have so far derived from all we have been told.
Since the bread shortage was first bruited abroad, the season has progressed. It is now possible to estimate with good assurance the harvests of the great food-exporting countries. We may base ourselves on the promise of bumper harvests in 1946. Whereas in the five years 1935–39 the average total of 37 million tons of wheat was reaped in the four great wheat-exporting countries, last year's harvest was 46 million tons, and the comparable figure for this year is estimated at 55 million tons, or 17 million tons above the prewar average. Moreover, British home production has made a very considerable increase—30 per cent. or 40 per cent.—over what it was before the war. Is that not so? Therefore it would seem that the Minister is on safe ground in promising not to make further cuts in the ration scale and also in holding out hopes of the speedy removal of bread rationing.
Where is his case for making this Order operative on 21st July? It is indeed a strange chain of circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman, and those with whom he acts, have to explain—bumper harvests, peaceful and open seas, Socialist planning, and yet, with all these blessings, bread rationing on 21st July. I draw a distinction between drawing up a system of bread rationing and actually bringing it into force. His Majesty's Government have made so many miscalculations in the past on these subjects, that it would no doubt be no more than prudent for them to set up the whole machinery of bread rationing. Indeed, if they fear there may be a breakdown in supplies in particular localities, through the pipeline getting unduly drained and beginning to creak and groan—about which we have had no information—if they fear that, they are bound to take this action, however wasteful, cumbrous and unpopular it may be.
I put it to the House, for careful consideration, that it would be better, in the public interest, in the next few weeks, to prepare a rationing scheme on better lines, in full consultation with the trade and the bakers, so as to make it as little onerous as possible, but not to enforce it until the


necessity is proved. I have a word to say to the bakers and the traders who are concerned. They have been ill-treated. They have not been consulted, nor have they been given a chance to aid the Government in solving the problem with all the expert and practical knowledge which they alone possess. Nevertheless, I strongly advise them to do their best to make whatever scheme is thrust upon them by the Government, and on the authority of Parliament, work as well as possible. If the scheme breaks down in operation, let it be clear to the country that it is because of its own inherent defects and not that the breakdown has been brought about by any lack of honest effort on the part of the trade concerned. This is the advice which I and my Friends on this bench feel it our duty to give them. [Interruption.] Does not the hon. Member approve of my giving that advice? We will play the game by you if you play the game by us. You have made us feel that we have hardly a right to live in our own country.
That all this friction, disturbance, inconvenience and hardship will be imposed upon the public, and all the vast process of handling and clipping scores of millions of coupons will be imposed upon the traders, the roundsmen and the housewives, for such small results—seven per cent.—only deepens the mystery of why the Government feel impelled to take this step, and why they feel impelled to take it now, without giving the scheme a chance to be properly prepared and arranged, or trying to carry people with them in their management of affairs. There would be an obvious advantage in taking more time to prepare the best possible scheme, in having friendly consultation with all the bakers and others, and putting the machinery in good order, in case an emergency—which has been in no way disclosed to us, let alone proved—should arise. That would be a sensible thing to do. What is the reason why it is not done?
I have dealt with several of the events which would justify an imposition of bread rationing, and I have shown that they do not apply, unless we are to be given some new information. I have only one other explanation which I can think of for the imposition of this rationing scheme, ill-conceived as it is and hurriedly pushed forward to come into operation on Sun-

day next. This explanation must be cleared up now. The only intelligible reason for imposing bread rationing on 21st July is so shocking as to seem incredible. I certainly am not adopting it until it is forced upon me. It is that we shall shortly reach, or perhaps have already practically reached, the distributional minimum of 800,000 tons in the pipeline, and that we are now condemned to live from hand to mouth for the five weeks between 21st July and 31st August. Can the Government really have allowed this to come to pass? Can I have an answer to that question now? Why was this date 31st August chosen to give us an account of the state of the pipeline, the only account we have been told we are to receive of the state of the pipeline? Naturally, I thought, it will be running down from the figure of 1,500,000 tons or whatever it was, and by 31st August it will get to 800,000 tons, somewhere below which the danger of breakdown in distribution, which must at all costs be avoided, might occur. Why was this particular date chosen? What is the intermediate position? How much is there in the pipeline now? How much will there be in the pipeline a fortnight hence? Is the position of the Government that the stocks in the pipeline may fall gradually to the danger level by 31st August, or is there something else which is grave, and of which we have not been told, between now and 31st August.
I have nearly finished the few remarks I have to make. Naturally, if the right hon. Gentleman will not answer my perfectly plain question by an interjection, I will wait until he makes his statement, but I feel sure that everyone in the House —not only on one side—will consider that answers to these plain questions of fact should be given and that the House should not have to vote without knowing what the answers are. We have found it difficult to understand the reasons which have led the Government to propose bread rationing now, and a fear has arisen that we have not been told the facts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a definite assurance. I hope to be reassured, and I believe I can be reassured, that we are not already at the danger point of 31st August. I gather that we are not——

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey indicated assent.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has said so. I am very glad of


that. I rejoice at that. Never will I have any emotion but joy and relief at anything which helps our country. If there had been a great breakdown, or something terrible going to break out upon us now, some skeleton in the right hon. Gentleman's cupboard going to leap out, I would still have counselled him to let it out at once, and not be frightened about it. But as I understand that he will give an answer which is reassuring on this point, namely, that the pipeline will not tall below 800,000 tons before 31st August, I can only tell him that, so far as I am able to obtain any information on the subject, that was the answer I expected him to give. If that is so, where is the case for imposing this rationing scheme on 21st July? If it is said that there is a great saving, that is an argument. If one says that some terrible thing is about to happen and that we must have the scheme now, that is an argument. If it is said that we are putting it into operation and will have to make it more severe in the future, that is an argument. But all these arguments arc demolished. What then is the argument for bread rationing on 21st July?
To sum up, if the Government were to tell us that a grave crisis had arisen or would arise in the course of the present month before the British harvest is reached and that its extent could be measured in terms of days of breakdown of distribution before 31st August, that would be a new fact of the first magnitude, which we should have to take into consideration. We should condemn the Government for their earlier mismanagement, but proceed to judge their new proposal on its merit. Moreover, besides all this, if the Government say that the present scales of rationing, which are practically no saving in consumption, are only the forerunners of much more drastic action which they apprehend will be needed, then we are willing to recognise that they have substance in the case which they make, no matter who was responsible for the mismanagement. If, however, His Majesty's Government cannot say one thing or the other, neither a crisis before 31st August, nor an increase in the severity of rationing after 31st August, it is plain that they have made no case which could justify any responsible Member of Parliament in agreeing to an ill thought out scheme involving a great measure of hardship on the people, and we shall vote against an Order which,

for all its cost and trouble and worry, appears at once panic-stricken in motive, and futile in action.

7.37 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has gone over once again the arguments, which are not new to this House, on the state of our wheat supplies and the consequent necessity, or lack of necessity, as he feels, for the rationing of bread. The figures which he quoted to us are themselves perfectly correct and I have no desire to challenge his arithmetic. He asked about one or two points of detail, which I will endeavour to answer, on why we apprehended that the importation of Canadian wheat to supplement the early deliveries of our own harvest—which we can, he said, legitimately hope for in September—might be smaller ban in former years. The right hon. Gentleman quoted figures. The answer to that is simple and definite—that this is the first time for many years certainly, and, so far as I know, the first time at all when the Canadian wheat elevators have been completely exhausted and that there has been for practical purposes no carry-over whatever from the old crop to the new. That is a fact which is serious to us but one of great honour to the Canadians, and, as a matter of fact, to the international organisation of the world. It is precisely by that exhaustive running down of the stocks of wheat in the great exporting countries to the lowest practicable level so that the great Montreal elevators did actually run dry a week or so ago, that, by the skin of our teeth, we have averted the worst at any rate of the consequences of world famine.
But, of course, that process does mean that the month of September, the last month in which deliveries would have to come from the old 1945 Canadian crop, is a month of special difficulty for us. We regard it as a month in which we could legitimately hope that a recovery in our stock position might begin, but we regard it also as one in which we would be rash indeed to expect any but a minimum importation of Canadian wheat, and a much lower importation than usual for that factor—unique, I trust, to this one year—that in an effort and a largely successful effort, to get the world through this desperate situation, the Canadians have run their stock position down to an unparalleled degree.
Now the right hon. Gentleman, with his accustomed eloquence, told us of the bright prospects that lie ahead, when he said that in the autumn, in October and November, we might well be having deliveries from a bumper Canadian crop and a bumper British crop. Well, that may be so; I trust and pray that it will be so; I think that the propects are bright for that—they are appreciably brighter than they were even when we debated the matter last. They should be bright but, as he said himself, it is all a question of what we trust and hope will happen after 30th September next. So that what the right hon. Gentleman was doing to us at the moment, if he will forgive me saying so, was telling us, as if we were a party that had to cross a very dangerous ravine on a very narrow bridge, "Oh, but you need not take any special care about crossing this bridge. Why, when you get to the other side, the road is easy and plain and wide." That is quite true—at least it is quite true as a prospect. We can only see the road ahead across the ravine and it does look promising, but, after all, those crops are not yet reaped. We have had to days of delightful summer weather in this country but—a not unknown experience in this country—in the last three days that weather has departed again. It may be that it comes back to us. I hope it will, but would it not be rash indeed to believe that we are to have a hot August and September in this country?
Those are types of uncertainties which surely are hardly relevant for us in discussing the question, and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally and rightly narrowed his point very closely to the question of whether this bread rationing ought or ought not to be introduced on the given date of 21st July——

Mr. Churchill: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets to that, he is surely going to tell us what wheat he does count on coming from Canada in the month of September. Is he going to tell us that out of this vast crop which Canada grows it is not possible, in an emergency like this, to gain 150,000 tons which would balance things?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I am more than willing to tell the right hon. Gentleman that. I have recently visited Canada and

spoken to the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. Gardiner, of the Ministry of Agriculture, and they assured me that owing to the climatic conditions in the Northern latitudes in which we know the Canadian crop is planted, we cannot, and never could, expect supplies from the new Canadian crop in September in this country. It would be something quite unparalleled if we could expect them. I repeat that in September it is a question of getting the leavings of the old crop, and they are actually very small indeed, for the very honourable reason which I have just given to the House. No, it is in October and beyond——

Mr. Churchill: What about the 150,000 tons? Is it possible to get 150,000 tons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Strachey: I confess I thought I had dealt with that, but I will deal with it quite candidly in the one word—No. It is not possible to get 150,000 tons, or anything comparable with it, of new Canadian wheat in the month of September, and that is a fact of climate and of geography.

Sir Ian Fraser: What about the old?

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS rose.——

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill was heard without interruption, and therefore I think the Minister of Food should receive the same courtesy.

Mr. Strachey: Having said that, and pointed out the basic irrelevance of a discussion of our prospects of wheat after the end of September next to the matter under discussion today which, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly posed it, is the question of whether or not we should introduce bread rationing on 21st July, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in rejoicing that those prospects for the autumn and the early winter are steadily improving at the moment. If these prospects continue to improve—and the harvests, I repeat, are not reaped yet and no harvest is out of danger until it is reaped—they do improve the prospect, not of avoiding the introduction of this scheme next week—they cannot affect that —but of being able to remove it at an early date. It would be most rash, before those harvests are gathered, to give


pledges and undertakings on that point, but we in this House can all join, surely, in saying that, as those prospects improve, then of course if our hopes are realised, it may be possible at a much earlier date than seemed probable only a few weeks ago, to remove the burden—and of course it is a burden—of bread rationing from the people of this country.
Now that is really the same point, but the right hon. Gentleman has stressed it so strongly, and I can only really give the same answer to the question he put roundly to me, why this particular date of 21st July? Because that is the latest possible date—and it is rather a late date —for the introduction of this scheme, to serve its practical and immediate purpose, and what it is now legitimate to hope, at any rate, may prove to be its only purpose, of taking us across this danger point of the turn of the crop year. The right hon. Gentleman toyed with the suggestion, not of the abandonment of the scheme, but of its postponement. However, if he is right—and I trust and cannot help believing in a sense that he is right in these brighter prospects for the new crop year—then a postponement today would be the most illogical thing of all, because it would mean that the scheme would not serve its purpose for safeguarding our position during the turn of the crop year.
The right hon. Gentleman pressed very strongly for an answer, and he shall certainly have one, on what the purpose of the scheme is in that short term as it faces us in the next two months. He asked, Can it be merely to make the relatively small saving which any such scheme must make in a short period such as that, since the weekly saving must obviously be a comparatively small one? No, the main purpose of that short term, if it proves, as we hope, the only period of the rationing scheme, is to provide an assurance policy against various factors which I enumerated when I last had the honour to address the House; the various uncertain factors which beset us during this period when, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has most strongly emphasised, our stocks will be at a dangerously low level. He quoted a simile which I ventured to give the House in a former speech, that we were entering into an era of storm and had to he in a position to shorten sail. He makes great play with that, that this is on account of a threat that the ration scales will be

reduced Is not the position perfectly simple from that? If the position, instead of improving as it has done—and I am glad to be able to tell the House that none of the short term prospects of deliveries from America have so far gone wrong—if instead of that improvement, we had a great or greater deterioration in the situation, then our insurance policy would have had to come into effect and we would have to meet the situation as we found it.

Mr. Churchill: The point is not whether the insurance policy comes into effect; it will come into effect if this is passed by the House. The point is whether an increased scale of rationing is contemplated.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. That is the right hon. Gentleman's point. On the contrary, in the present outlook, which we agree has distinctly improved as I announced to the House a few days ago, we were able to make a small improvement in these scales, but that is because things have gone the way they have gone. They might have gone the other way and we would have had to meet that situation. The right hon. Gentleman says I have given great assurances on these matters. I have always said that if those crops failed, and if there were terrible hailstorms on the Canadian prairies—I remember I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that, of course, if these 1946 crops failed, and the monsoon in India failed again, and the Southern Hemisphere crops failed—in a world situation of that sort it would be quite absurd to give an assurance that any particular scale of supply could be maintained in this country. That is perfectly simple and straightforward. I should have to know what are the harvests to be reaped all over the world.
The right hon Gentleman made very great play with the splendid harvests which he said are expected in the Northern hemisphere this year. I think he did exaggerate the prospect somewhat and I only hope that he is proved right —he may be right. But even so, do not let him forget the other side of the picture which is of the utmost importance—the fact that this year the world starts with no fewer than 11,000,000 tons less wheat in stock than it did last year. Therefore, this year's harvests in the four


great exporting countries have to turn out bigger by 11,000,000 tons than the harvests of last year, only to start equal. I do not like having to emphasise it, but that is the other great consideration which we cannot lose sight of unfortunately.
He then went on to suggest, in a remarkable passage, that there might be some great skeleton in my cupboard ready to leap forth—I have never seen a skeleton leap forth—on a frightened world. It would reveal that our stock position was far worse than any which had been revealed to the House. He asked why we took this date at the end of August, 31st August, in forecasting our stock position to the House. I will tell him precisely. We took that date precisely because, in the opinion of our experts, that was likely to be the low point. That was the worst figure from our point of view which we could give. So we thought it right to give that figure. We do hope that because of the collection of the home harvest there will be a slow and then, we hope now, a more rapid, improvement after that. That is the low point. Stocks, I can assure him at once, are not down to that level yet. As he says, there is likely to be a slow run down until the end of August, and that we believe is the point at which the graphs will begin to turn upwards.

Mr. Churchill: Nothing below the danger point will be reached between now and 31st August?

Mr. Strachey: No, I believe that to he so. I know what the right hon. Gentleman's point was, and he was loudly applauded for it—if that is so, why not wait until we come to the danger point, and then put on rationing? Is that a really wise or prudent action? To wait until the very day when one gets to one's very lowest point in supplies, before doing anything to safeguard the position? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman cry "No," and I am glad to hear them say "No." I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would speak in the most scathing terms of the improvidence, recklessness and irresponsibility—I have not his wealth of language; he would go on with a list of epithets ten times as long as I could muster—and all these things he could say of any Government,

and rightly, who let the situation get right down to the danger point, to the lowest level, before they took any step to safeguard the position.
I would like to turn for a moment to a subject on which I can fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the prudent and helpful words which he offered to the bakers on the question of the enforcement of this scheme——

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the stocks up to the end of August?

Mr. Strachey: I could give the stocks as we foresee them, from week to week, but it would be of little interest, and would be speculative, because they depend on the exact dates of sailings of ships from American and other ports and precisely the dates on which the harvest comes in this country. I believe it would be utterly meaningless to go down to the last 5,000 tons of stocks as we expect them to go down to the low point on 31st August.
On the question of my friends the bakers, with whom I have spent a good deal of today in conference, I thank the right hon. Member for Woodford for the words he said to them. I say to the bakers—to all of them, not merely to the particular section, the relatively small section with whom I have been in conference today and who have sent deputations to me—whatever their attitude, I realise that we as a nation are asking them to put themselves to very great trouble and very great inconvenience over this scheme. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But they are a class of retail distributors who have had—I must say this—on the other hand, very great good fortune. They have never been worried with the distribution of rationed goods up to now. It is, of course, a great shock and a great inconvenience to face those problems which other retailers have been facing, those burdens, which the grocers, for example, have been carrying in working the whole of the points rationing scheme which was introduced by my illustrious predecessor, Lord Wootton—and a very good scheme it was. But it was a much more complicated scheme than we are introducing here, and one which the grocers of this country have found a way to work exceedingly well and effectively.
I say to the bakers that I think they will find that if and when—certainly I make bold to say "when"—they try, reasonably and sensibly, to work this scheme, they will succeed in working it. I will say at once that in the case of any baker who in good faith is doing his best to work this scheme, and does not get it quite right in the first few days, we shall do everything in our power to help him, and not hamper him.

Mr. Wadsworth: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a considerable number of grocers in this country handle bread.

Mr. Strachey: That may be true. I thank them too for the cooperation they are to give in working this scheme. To revert to what I was saying, it is only in the case of a baker, if such a case arises—I trust and believe it will not arise—who wilfully and obviously makes no attempt to work this scheme, that the sanctions will be applied—and not merely legal sanctions but the sanctions of supply, which must naturally, in any rationing scheme, follow the workings of the scheme itself. Finally, I would say this. The right hon. Gentleman asked, What is all this scheme, this elaboration, this burden and this fuss, why has it all been imposed? What have we to gain for it—only a few miserable tons of wheat? No, that is not what we have to gain. This nation, in going through the inconvenience of this scheme, which we do not doubt for one moment, has to gain, we believe, a thing absolutely essential to it during the next two months; it has to gain safety and assurance for the bread supply of the people, and fair and equitable distribution of that supply to everybody.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, who has just addressed us with his customary skill, is at least worthy of this compliment that he has an almost unparalleled gift for arousing the least critical of his supporters to an almost unheard frenzy of masochistic hysteria, and that in a House of Commons peopled with a singularly uncritical majority. But he achieves this result only at the expense of a total disregard of the major part of the case against him. On the last occasion when this issue came before the House,

the Minister succeeded in arousing the pleasure of his supporters only at the expense of urging that there was a grave crisis upon the world. But he conveniently forgot to observe that the gravamen of the charge against him, and against the Government of which he is a Member, was not that there was a crisis, but that the impact of that crisis upon this country had been gravely contributed to, and aggravated by, the incompetence of His Majesty's Government, an Administration which had put in charge of the nation's food for 12 months the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith), and devoted such poor brains as it possessed to the pursuance of the class war and their system of nationalisation.
On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has similarly shirked the issue. We are debating here an Order which has been put forward by his Ministry. We propose to vote against it because it is a bad Order. It is unworkable. It is the ill-thought out and over-complicated scheme of a cocksure and inexperienced administrator. The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in addressing this House for over half an hour without saying a word about the terms of the Order, or the principles upon which it is based. The charge against the right hon. Gentleman is this: This country has in existence a system of rationing which I venture to say is second to none in the world. In two world wars it has stood the test of time, and has gradually improved in operation, so that it is not too much to say that it is by far the most successful system of rationing ever devised. Indeed, I had almost said, except for the fear that hon. Gentlemen opposite might ask me to withdraw, that it was the only successful system of rationing which had ever been devised in a civilised community.
That being so, one would have thought that when it came to be necessary to ration the most basic food commodity of all, the right hon. Gentleman himself, almost devoid of experience in his Department, would have paid some attention to the principles of rationing which have thus established themselves in this country. It is the country most qualified to deal with a system of that kind, but we find that his scheme is novel in almost all its important respects. It bears all the marks of inexperience. It is complicated where it should be simple; it disregards


the principles which have worked in the past, and it has been promulgated without adequate consultation with those who will have to carry it out in practice. As I understood the plea which came from the Front Opposition bench, presented by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it was this: We think that, having regard to the defects in the scheme, only some grave and urgent crisis which must break in the next two or three weeks could justify us in putting into effect this particular ill thought out scheme. We quite agree that in not having a proper scheme ready by now, if it be necessary to ration bread, the Government have been guilty of grave imprudence, but we think, having regard to the unworkable character of this scheme and to the facts which have been disclosed by the Government, which do not justify any panic measures, we ought to think again and to produce a scheme based on rational principles which would be workable and which would be acceptable to the people of this country. It is precisely that case, which is directed at his own Ministerial incompetence, with which the right hon. Gentleman has utterly failed to deal. I did not say too much when I said that he had only achieved the loud cheers of his uncritical supporters by completely ignoring the nature of the case against him.
Now that we understand from the Minister that the situation is not as urgent as we might have feared it was from the nature of the scheme, we are still less able to comprehend why a scheme should have been brought forward which embodies such a grave departure from the principles of rationing. If it be true, as he now leads us to suppose, that this scheme is only thought of as a temporary expedient to lead us across a narrow ravine the road beyond which looks fair and promising, one would have thought it would have been easy and desirable to produce a scheme of rationing which complied in some respects with that with which the housewives of this country are familiar. Instead, he has chosen to follow his own road, a road which I prophesy will lead him into administrative difficulties and may even lead him into disaster.
If there be one principle which has made the rationing system in this country a success, it is that subject to very few

exceptions, and those of the most obvious kind based on extreme physical need—as in the case of sickness, or pregnancy, or extraordinary physical exertion as in the case of the very heavy manual trades—except for those broad exceptions, for the most part the ration of every basic commodity has been the same. That is the thing which has made it acceptable to the people. But the right hon. Gentleman has now chosen to introduce a very highly differential scale of rationing. It is that fact which has led him into difficulties at the present time. In the form in which it was originally presented, he succeeded in making up the ration of the heavy manual workers at the expense of starving the children of this country. That he has now virtually admitted by his recent increase. He has succeeded in remedying this situation only very largely at the expense of destroying the saving which he hoped to make. Neither in the former form in which the scheme was presented nor in the present form was anything whatever done to ameliorate the position of the housewife.
The essential absurdity of the differential scale is brought to a head in the case of the housewife. The right hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma. He cannot count the housewife as a manual worker because if he did he would destroy the economies he proposes to make. On the other hand, if he does not treat her as a manual worker, at least of the lighter kind, all I can-say is that it illustrates the fundamental absurdity of differential rationing. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said that the restored cuts would help the housewife with children. I wonder whether the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who I hope will reply to this Debate, will explain that answer, because I must say I find it a little difficult to understand. To my mind, it can mean only one of two things. If the restored cuts to the children are going to help the housewife with children, either it must mean that the right hon. Gentleman's present intention is that the housewife should eat part of her children's ration, or it must mean that it was his original intention that the housewife should have gone without part of her already too meagre ration in order to supplement those of her children. I should like to know which is the explanation of the extraordinary answer


which the right hon. Gentleman gave yesterday.
It is not only in the adoption of this differential scale that the right hon. Gentleman has departed from the fundamental principles of the rationing schemes which have proved so successful in the past. I turn now to the question of registration. One of the principles of British rationing in the 1939 war was that basic foods, like meat, should be the subject of registration so that the housewife had to register with a particular distributor. The points system was superimposed upon that in order to give variety, but the basic commodities were the subject of registration. The reason for that surely was very obvious. If in fact the housewife is not registered, any particular distributor—especially in the case of a commodity like bread or flour which can be turned to a variety of uses —has to deal, as a matter of pure speculation, with the problem of how much he should bake or in what form he should bake it. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly sure that in introducing this novel principle he was actuated by a desire to make the lot of the housewife more easy. I give him credit in this respect for his good intention, but I venture to think that the consequences will be gravely different from those which he expects. It must be the case that where bakers do not know how much or what kind of bread or confectionery to bake, there will be local shortages and gluts. There will be constant local panics and moves from distributor to distributor. All the evils which we succeeded in eliminating from our traditional system of rationing will, at any rate for a short time, be accentuated and brought to pass. I think he ought to reconsider that part of the scheme.
There is another feature of the scheme which again I feel absolutely certain was actuated by the best of intentions. Again it represents a fundamental departure from our well known and successful system of rationing. I refer to the inter-convertibility of B.Us. and points. Again I feel perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman introduces that scheme in a desire to alleviate the hardship of rationing. At first sight, it was an attractive and generous idea, but it seems to me to have two fundamental disadvantages. First, the divorce of the ration book from

the coupon and of the owner from the ration book simultaneously, will create a black market on a scale which hitherto has been unknown in this country. That is an evil which is not worth while having regard to what we are now told is the temporary nature of the scheme. Second, it is obvious—and it was pointed out by an lion. Gentleman in the last Debate we had upon this subject—that one of the curious effects of the interconvertibility of bread units and ordinary points will be that it penalises the poor and gives privilege to the rich.
It is obvious, whatever may have been the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, that the poor will want to convert their points into bread units, while the rich will want to convert their bread units into points. We thus have this comical position, which, I have no doubt, is the last thing the right hon. Gentleman intended to do. He will whip into the Lobby tonight the whole of his majority of zoo Lobby fodder units of Labour Party supporters in order to support a scheme, one integral feature of which is that the rich are given an additional privilege, while the poor suffer an additional disadvantage.
I should be doing less than justice to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not suggest an alternative course. I suppose that I should not be allowed to do so in any detail without contravening the Rules of Order, but I think that, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, I ought to suggest that there was an alternative all along. Upon the assumption, which I do not accept, that as distinct from flour and confectionery, it was necessary to ration bread, it would have been possible to introduce a scheme in conformity with our —I almost called it—traditional system, but perhaps that is rather too gloomy a view, so I will say our well-known system of rationing which the housewife would have understood, which would have been simpler in operation and more acceptable to the trade and public. If bread rationing had to be introduced. it should have been introduced in this form —bread should have been the subject of registration, with a more or less equal ration, subject only to this—that the very heavy manual workers and the workers who use packed meals should have had an advantage, and that the rest of the flour and confectionery should have been on the ordinary system of points, with, of course, necessary adjustments either in


the total number of points allowed or in the value of the various commodities. If that had been done, we should, at least, have got simplicity, and, probably general acceptance.
Now I come to the last point I want to make. The right hon. Gentleman has departed from the principles of good rationing in yet another respect. I know that it is the fashion with hon. Members opposite to deride and denigrate any group of people who make their living by serving the public in any particular respect, and I know that it becomes very hard for a Socialist Minister to follow the example of his predecessors in Parliament in carrying along with him the members of any particular trade which will have to assist in the operation of a particular administrative scheme, but, in this case, the attitude of the Minister towards the baking and ancillary trades has been one of contempt, until, at last, their obvious dissatisfaction with the Minister has, to some extent, brought him to heel. I desire to echo the wise words of my right hon. Friend in what he said about the implied threat by certain people, goaded on by the Minister's irresponsible attitude and contempt, to fight the law. Such an attitude cannot be tolerated, and certainly not from these benches. We do not believe in the principle of the general strike. We opposed the repeal of an Act the object of which was to make it illegal to hold the Government to ransom. But I do not think this Government have any cause to complain in this respect, because after all, what is sauce to the goose is also sauce to the gander, and if the right hon. Gentleman ventures to carry into effect the various threats with which he is endeavouring to terrify the trade, I trust he will take the advice of the learned Attorney-General, who told this House not many months ago on another occasion that
we might as well try to bring down a rocket bomb with a pea-shooter, as try to stop a strike by the processes of the criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 200.]
I hope that, if it is proposed to bring into effect the processes of the criminal law against these unfortunate men, it will also be proposed to brief for the prosecution competent counsel, who, at least, believe in the instrument which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to invoke.
I think we must vote against this Order. It is introduced by a Government who have gravely accentuated the impact of the world situation on this country, and who, in the past, have been somewhat less than frank with this House. It is carried forward by a majority who, the moment they are faced with any signs of popular agitation or alarm, threaten, with unmistakable signs, to curb the full exercise of public liberty. The moment they are criticised in the Press the Press must be subject to an inquiry, and, when petitions against this Order are brought before this House, loud cries arise from the Government Benches and attempts are made to interfere with the rights of hon. Members. When, at last, some misguided person——

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. May I ask if hon. Members on this side of the House will be permitted—[Interruption]—I am rising on a point of Order. I really do not want to give an opportunity for someone to make a row. I am rising on a point of Order, which is my prerogative as an hon. Member of this House, and I am asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the hon. Member is in Order in raising questions like the General Strike which are not contained in the matter before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): In my view, in so far as he has gone, the hon. Member is in Order.

Mr. Hogg: When some misguided people begin to use names about hon. Members opposite, which have frequently been applied to hon. Members on this side when they supported the Government of the day, hon. Members opposite show a wonderful readiness to bring out of its cave the fire-breathing instrument of Privilege which was designed to crush those who threaten and intimidate the free House of Commons. We are making ourselves ridiculous, and we do not improve the opinion in which this House is held in the country by showing ourselves unable to face the anger of our constituents.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The speech to which we have just listened, in so far as it has been practicable and constructive, was interesting, but, for lack of


knowledge, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) went right off the lines, and only a short part of his speech was devoted to practical considerations. We have had cheap undergraduate witticisms which the hon. Member ought to have left behind a long time ago, and we have had a most unfortunate reference to unfortunate men. I could think of another title, which may have occurred to the hon. Member, and I would say that men who set out to break down the law and to bring into disrepute something which this House has passed are not unfortunate men. The practical criticisms which the hon. Member made were, as I undestood them, that the scheme was too complicated and not simple enough, and that it would have been better if the scheme had not paid as much attention as it does to priority classes. Fortified by recent visits to my Division, I want to say that it is the attention which the scheme pays to priority classes which commends it to the housewives.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got me right. I said that it is wrong to starve the child and the housewife.

Mr. Brown: I deliberately did not answer that because I thought that, on reflection, the hon. Member would regard it as somewhat exaggerated. If he does not, in fact, see it that way, I cannot possibly help him.
I want to say a word in criticism of the practical points of the scheme precisely from the other end. I believe there are ways in which the attention to priority classes could be improved. Before the hon. Member for Oxford spoke, we heard a speech by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I must say that I have never heard, on what was supposed to be a great occasion, such a collection of stale jokes and "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. There was the greatest repetition. We had the first sentence at least three times, and I feel that the cheers which the right hon. Gentleman received at the end of his speech from his cohorts behind him were much more to rouse their own drooping spirits than in appreciation of what he said. In fact, what we have had so far in this Debate has confirmed what I had in mind, that the attitude of the other side to this question is altogether

one of playing politics about a great human issue.
I am not one to complain about them for damning the Government by bell, book or candle, or by any other means that comes to hand, but let us, at least, remember in this great Mother of Parliaments that when we are dealing with a food issue, even if it were to involve failures on the part of the Government, we are dealing with the greatest human question of all—the situation which arises out of the starvation of millions of people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hardly thought that I should ever get the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on my side. So far today, we have heard nothing about the alleged feeding by us of Germany which caused this situation, although we have been told of it before. Every moral and self interest drove us to do what, in fact, we did. If we rule out the moral question, which does not tempt ho.n. Members opposite, we have only given to Germany what has been described by an hon. Member on this side as our insurance against a repetition of the Spanish `flu. Even on that low material level, it is the kind of thing we could not get away from.
The campaign which has been waged against this bread rationing scheme has been one of great immorality. I have said this in my Division. A lady, who did an enormous amount of speaking for my opponent at the last Election, told me in this House that she was thoroughly disgusted with the campaign against bread rationing. I could understand the Opposition working up the country against us, but as my right hon. Friend said, to work up the housewife against the one form of machinery which is her salvation is quite immoral. If any political party goes into the field to conduct a great campaign against the Government, it has to answer the question, "What would you have done had you had the position to face?" The hon. Member for Oxford tried to answer that. I thought it was a poor answer, because it begged the essential virtues of this scheme. I always remember that in the minds of our people is still the fact that the Tories answered this question after 1918. It was still rationing, but it was rationing by the power of the purse.
I have been reminded that one of the things against us is that we are supposed


not to keep closely in touch with our people. I commend to hon. Members opposite to find out the reaction to this scheme in those Divisions represented for the first time in this House today by Socialists, so far as their morals are concerned. I have been to my Division and have invited those who felt strongly about this to meet me. They have done so in great numbers. I think it is fair to say that, on the whole, the need for something in this crisis is in fact recognised and admitted; that rationing is regarded as the fairest way in which to deal with a situation the existence of which they recognise, and that they have some reservations about the scheme, which I will mention to the Minister in a few moments. Before mentioning them, I would say that I have heard the master bakers' representative who ended a meeting, during which he had asked many questions, by saying:
 There was an alternative "—
and for a moment I thought the hon. Member for Oxford had somehow alighted on the bakers' alternative:
 The alternative was to let the price rise. You would then have controlled the demand, because people would have stopped buying, any more than a mere minimum.
I have heard other people make comments. A Church of England vicar—a non-party man who was never associated with me up to this time—came to a meeting, and at the end of it he got up to express his point of view. He said something which appealed to me, and I commend it to hon. Members opposite. He said that the Government were doing a morally right thing and not a politically expedient thing.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: would like to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman, who is putting his case very reasonably and very well Considering that the gain involved in this scheme is so small in substance, could not the Government have made a voluntary appeal to the nation so that those of us who are not employed on hard manual labour could voluntarily cut down our food supplies and leave it to the others? Could not they say to this nation, which is accustomed not to being led but to leading itself, "Will you create this safety margin for us and save the country?" I believe it is possible to do it.

Mr. Brown: That question has been asked in this House over and over again. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the answer?"] It is the Minister's explanation which appeals to me greatly, namely, that the essence of the scheme of rationing is that it enables one to work to closer margins. May I commend the answer which I gave to the same question in my Division? If the people in one town happened not to "play ball" under a voluntary scheme, and started a run on the stocks at a time when the supplies in the pipeline were running down, and if people continued to feed whippets as they do in those areas where whippets are kept, the only alternative solution when there was a shortage of margins would to take stocks from a neighbouring town. That is precisely the kind of thing which makes a voluntary appeal out of the question.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman cannot trust his own people.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to develop that point. I assure him that I have thought about that question, and if he thinks it over, by next Sunday he will agree that it would not work.
I want to say a few words about the reservations, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who I am glad to see here, to take careful note of this. First—I am most sure about this point: I am not so sure about the others —I ask that something be done as early as possible about the manual worker who, by sheer accident, does not get a cheese ration. If one cannot get cheese, one can at a pinch put something else between bread, even if it is only a spread of margarine, but if one cannot get bread one can put nothing between it. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames appears to find that remark rather exceptionable, but I assure him that it is true.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My amusement was caused solely by a remark of unexceptionable accuracy coming for the first time from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: I have no doubt that if, some day, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames learns, as I have, the value of not intervening too often, he also might begin to make statements of accuracy.


Turning to the question of the manual workers, I had some experience, during the war, handling the appeals of workers for extra rations and coupons, on the basis of a national machine It is a most cumbersome and difficult thing to get bodies which are advising the Minister to accept an appeal for the inclusion of any particular class of worker, because it always sets precedents.
What I hope is, that the Ministry will quickly set up local appeal machinery, so that it can be dealt with on the basis of five or ten workers appealing in an area, and getting a decision within a matter of days. The second point, about which I am not quite so sure, but I believe it is a strong point, is that the children's increase at the moment starts at 11 years of age. I have been told about this in my own constituency, and I have experience of it in my own home. I feel sure we ought, if it is at all possible, to introduce a stepping up in the ration at an age lower than 11, because children start to eat that extra bread, speaking of my own experience, at eight years of age. I think that is about the right age at which to start it. At any rate, we ought to have an intermediate stepping up.
The third point, about which I am not sure, is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) developed the other day, and I have come round to her point of view, though I do not know whether she regrets that or not. It is on the question of introducing some points control, or other control, of eating out. I accept the whole of the Minister's argument about the practical effect of this, and I have said so in my own constituency. However, there comes a time in all these things when we have to balance what is politically or psychologically desirable against what is effectively possible. I believe we have reached the point in our planning of things when we ought to launch out on a definite line, otherwise a lot of people will feel, perhaps inaccurately, that other people are getting a good deal more than themselves.
I have said all I set out to say, save for one thing, namely: I hope that in an issue of this kind we will keep the discussion at a much better level than has been the case in the past week or so. Rightly or wrongly, it is a big and major

issue. I hope no section of the community will have the impertinence—and I use that word quite advisedly—to say to this Government, or to any other Government, "Because we think you have done a wrong thing, and a cumbersome thing, we will not work it at all." In regard to the Minister's plans to deal with sabotage, if they may be needed, I thought I detected a slightly mischievous note, which is sometimes met, from hon. Members on the other side.

8.43 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I am not going to attempt to speak on the general food situation, except to start by saying I have complete lack of confidence in the present Government, and certainly in regard to the food administration. I want to speak, first, on the position of the bakers. The bakers have been attacked, and very strongly attacked, because they have said they do not believe they can put this scheme into effect satisfactorily. Those of us who had the honour of representing our con, stituencies during the war know perfectly well what the baking industry did during the war. I like to feel, in spite of what the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, that many of us have always, been and still are in close touch with our constituents. I know that there is hardly a baker in my constituency who, during the war, has not had to come to, me in order to try to get help to carry, on his business. Perhaps my position, representing a country constituency, is different from some hon. Members who represent town constituencies, although I think it applies to the towns as well.
The baking industry was not a popular industry before the war, even in days of peace. They have night baking, and long hours, and much of the work is carried on by very small traders. During the war they lost their assistants; their sons were taken from them, and very often their daughters too. The bakers in my constituency—and this applies to the rest of the country, too—have carried on under the greatest difficulties. Sometimes it has meant an elderly father and mother, all alone, whose health has become completely wrecked by the work they had' to do. I can assure the House I have heard of case after case where the Ministry of Labour have been unable to help by supplying any assistant labour at all


What these war years have meant to the baking industry has to be remembered and understood before we condemn too quickly the fact that they now state they do not believe they can operate the bread rationing scheme.
It is because of what they have been through, and because they have not yet got the help in their shops that they should have—it may be coming later on, when more people are demobilised—that they are taking up this attitude about bread rationing. They are very much afraid that they cannot work it. It is not a political ramp on the part of the bakers, and on their behalf I very much resent that being said. It is a genuine fear on the part of very loyal men and women, who have done an extremely good job of work during the war, that they may not be able to fulfil their obligations, and that is what many of us on this side are fearing as well. They have served the community loyally through the whole of this period, and through the very difficult six years of war. Now they have thrust upon them, literally at a moment's notice, a very complicated scheme. They have only had a fortnight's notice, and those of us who have seen the papers they have received know that it is complicated.
The handling of bread in this country is to a great extent in the hands of very small people. I know there are big stores, and there are also the Cooperative stores, but the bulk of it is done by small people. They have this complicated scheme given them at a fortnight's or ten days' notice and they are expected to be able to work it. They are very anxious in case it should break down. The men and women on whose behalf I am speaking are absolutely genuine; they are the first people who would be anxious to make this scheme work if they could, but they are afraid they will not be able to do so. They are being blamed because they are expressing their views so strongly, but I think it would be very wrong if they did not express their views strongly, because if the scheme were to break down and they had said nothing, the public could turn on them and say, "Why did not you warn us that you would not be able to make it work?"
I had a letter only this morning from an outlying village in my constituency where they have no local baker, but ob-

tain bread from either a town three miles away on one side or one five miles away on the other side. From one of those towns they have received notice that the bakers cannot now undertake delivery in outlying villages, and from the other town a paper saying that they must register instantly by the Thursday of this week —which is today—otherwise no bread will be delivered there. There is no time for these people to understand what they have got to do, and that is why many of us feel deeply anxious about what will happen when the scheme is put into operation on Sunday
I want to say a word or two on behalf of the housewives. I have heard it said, I think by one of my colleagues downstairs, that queueing would not necessarily become worse because of bread rationing. Queueing can only be cured by an increased number of deliveries outside and more assistance in the shops. That is the only answer to queueing, and there is no doubt that under this scheme deliveries will be very much slower. It will certainly be so in the country districts. The van goes round—it is very often a horse and van—the driver stops and drops the two or three loaves, frequently the money is left on the sill, when the woman is not there herself; he goes on and delivers at the next house, and the whole of the delivery is based on the period of time it takes him to do that round. Now he must stop at each place longer. He must find the woman, she must get her book and he must cut out the coupons. [An HON. MEMBER: "They can be deposited at the shop."] I know she can hand the coupons over to the shop, but not when the delivery is to the little cottages in the outlying districts which I have described. As there is already a great shortage of delivery vans, it will take far longer to deliver the bread. Therefore, it will mean that more of the public will have to go to the shops and queue.
It has been said to me that there is very little queueing in the bread shops, but I can assure hon. Members that I myself have never been able to buy a cake without queueing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because it is unrationed."] I have never been able to purchase a cake without joining a queue for it. It is not the fault of the shops. It is not the fault of the people. It is simply that, until we have more assistants in the shops and


more deliveries, the general situation cannot improve, and certainly not if deliveries in the country districts are now curtailed any further. There will be more people having to go to the towns and shop personally, and, therefore, there will be more delays and more queueing. I am certain that the only way to work this scheme is by registering, in exactly the same way as we have registered at our grocers' shops. The grocers and the public know exactly where they are. I have talked this matter over very carefully with the numerous bakers who have come to me in the last few days, and they all say the same thing, "Let us have our customers registered with us, and then we shall know exactly where we stand."
Now, I wish to make a few suggestions. We are very glad the Minister has bound it possible to increase the allowance for the adolescent children. Those of us who have these great, growing children, as I have myself—and I know that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has, also, the same anxiety—know how boys of 17 can eat a loaf in one meal. Our 17 year olds are permanently hungry these days. I am sorry to have to say it—it is, perhaps, to my own shame—but my own large 17 year old is never anything but hungry and the only way to placate his hunger is to put a loaf down before him, and that loaf vanishes in the most extraordinary way. At any rate, the allowance to the adolescent boy and girl has been increased. But I should like to make a plea for the younger children from five to 11, whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper mentioned. A child from seven to 11 is growing very fast, and is also always in a permanent state of hunger. I hope it will be possible to increase the allowance for children of that age.
For the housewife I want to plead very strongly. She, indeed, does manual work, very hard manual work; and I hope it will be possible to increase the allowance for her. Another category has also been mentioned, the self-employed farmers. Unless some different system can be evolved, they will not get extra bread, and yet the self-employed farmers and the farmers' families are, very often working as hard if not harder than the men they employ, I hope it will be possible to see that this category of very deserving and hard working persons get

the extra allowance allowed to those they employ.
During the war, those of us who have represented constituencies in Parliament have felt it a privilege and an honour, not only to keep closely in touch with our constituents, but, also, to advise them and help them on every kind of occasion. When unpleasant Regulations have been brought in, as they have had to be brought in because of the war and during the war, and controls have been put on, we have helped our people to understand that they have had to accept those restrictions and controls, because they were necessary. It is a very real distress to those of us on this side of the House—and I speak very sincerely, can assure hon. Members—that: we cannot at the moment feel that same urge. It is riot that we do not appreciate that there is a world shortage of food, that we cannot appreciate that there must be a cutting down in the consumption of flour. We all realise that. But we are not convinced that this will be achieved under the bread rationing scheme and we are far from convinced that it is a really satisfactory scheme. Also, we do not feel that the public has been taken into the Minister's confidence and that there is much more behind it all than we have been told. Surely, from the experience in the war, we ought to realise that this people of ours can face anything if they are told the truth, and if they tryst those who are in power.
It distresses me that I have to speak thus, but I am speaking from the point of view of what it means to the housewives in the country. If rationing is necessary, then a better scheme should have been planned, a scheme which was more workable and had the support of the bakers: This scheme is complicated, and it is contrary to the rules laid down by Lord Woolton when he drew up his original schemes for rationing of certain food, milk and other commodities. He always insisted on carrying the trade with hint. During the war I had the honour to sit on the National Expenditure Committee and my Committee made a careful inquiry into the Ministry of Food. We were very much impressed by what vie found, and for that reason I am able to speak with a certain amount of authority as to the system adopted by Lord Wool-ton. The Minister has failed to carry the trade with him, as Lord Woolton


carried the different trades with him when he was rationing food. If there is a danger of shortage in the next few weeks, we must accept the fact that flour has to be saved, but the scheme suggested is a bad one, and I am afraid that it will be an unworkable one. I have no hesitation, therefore in voting against what I believe to be a thoroughly bad Order.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: It is certainly very much easier to attack the Government on their policy of bread rationing than to defend them, because there is no doubt that this will involve a very large number of people in very vexatious inconveniences, and will, I am afraid, involve some people in read hardship. Some of us who take up a rather independent position in this House——

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Sitting on the fence as usual.

Mr. Roberts: —do not need to support the Government continuously whatever they do, right or wrong, nor do we have the irresponsible urge, which the Conservative Party has at the moment, to find that what is popular is also right. It is very easy at the moment to attack the Government for this rationing scheme, and it is a very popular cry to say that it is quite unnecessary. There is no doubt that the Conservative Party is adopting that point of view, and I am very anxious in what I say to dissociate myself from them on that account. Some of us, including many Independents, have thought very hard about this and have come to different conclusions. There are Members who believe that a case has not been made out, but I believe that a case has been made out, and that this is a wise safeguard and a necessary insurance against accident.
I do not know if I understood the Minister aright, when he gave his answer to the Leader of the Opposition, on the question of whether the bread ration will be reduced. It seems to me that what he meant was that if there are accidents—if everything does not go according to plan—the ration will be reduced. The position which the stocks are in today has arisen partly through the deliberate act, or, at any rate, the agreement of the Govern-

ment, in allowing an allocation of the world wheat supplies to go to India, the Continent and other countries. May we understand from the Minister that, in no circumstances, will he willingly agree to a reallocation of supplies which would reduce our bread to below the ration now proposed, unless some unforeseen situation arose? We accept that it is necessary that, when the pipe-line is being run as low as it is, the Government should have control over the supplies, and safeguard the equal distribution of those supplies.
Turning to the fact that this is going to cause great hardship and inconvenience, especially at this time, I would like to support the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), who has told us what difficulties it is going to create, especially in the country districts. I hope that the administration of the Ministry of Food will be made as elastic as possible in those districts. In the North of England, we eat very much more bread and pastries than do people in the South. Bread is a very large item of diet in the rural districts of the North, where we have no canteens such as there are for the heavy workers and other workers in the big industries. We are long distances from the food offices. It is a real concession that we shall be able to post our B.U. coupons to the food offices, because there are large centres of population in my district which are 10 to 15 miles from the nearest food office.
The importance of bread in all the essential activities of the countryside is very much greater than it is in towns. Every social event in the countryside is dependent on bread and tea, along with cake and other things, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she would tell us something about the policy in respect of bread and flour for caterers. I hope that she will be able to give a reasonable allocation to the firms which cater for parties and for social events, especially in country districts. I do not think that it is going to be at all easy for agricultural workers, especially small farmers to exist on the bread allowances. It is going to be particularly difficult during the harvest. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us if extra rations will be given for harvest workers. During the long days which they work, an enormous amount of bread is consumed.
The first people who will be terribly hard hit are the people living alone, not necessarily aged people, because workers sometimes live alone. They will find it exceedingly difficult to make ends meet on the bread ration. Whether any latitude can be given there, I do not know.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I want to refer and which has been mentioned by the Minister of Food himself. A considerable quantity of bread grains would have been used for livestock this autumn if bread rationing had not been brought into operation. There would be a saving there. There has been a great deal of improper use of bread and flour for animal feeding in the past, and in my own district a lot has been used for dogs. That should not be. Although it will be hard for those who earn a perfectly legitimate living rearing greyhounds, yet bread should not be used for that purpose at the present time. This is the only definite way by which it will be stopped.
I want to say a word about the bakers. It is a pity that they have conducted their opposition to this scheme the way they have. Some bakers have opposed it vigorously, but I know that they are not in the majority. I think they may have a good deal to say for themselves, but they really have not done their case any good by their meeting yesterday, which merely marked their archaic determination not to cooperate. Some of us would like to know what their troubles and problems really are. Why are they going to find it so difficult? I do not think that the scheme will be any more difficult for them than it is for those working the other rationing schemes, but if they have any special difficulties we ought to have been told about them. They have not managed to get them to the general public beyond the fact that they do not like bread rationing or the working of it.
I gather that they have suggested that if flour for cakes, bread, confectionery or whatever it is called were off the ration, it would be quite possible for the housewife to register for bread alone, and that flour might be rationed for cake purposes to the baker on a basic allocation, as has been clone in many other cases. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why that is not practicable. Fats and other commodities are allocated on that basis. Would it really simplify the whole system if bread as bread were rationed or

flour for bread was rationed while flour for cakes and cakes were either not rationed or only rationed by an allocation to the bakers. Perhaps the two are so interchangeable within the bakery as to make the ration scheme unworkable. I do not know, but it seems to me that it would make the baker's problem very much smoother if that could be arranged.
There is one other small point which I think is a little annoying to the housewife. The B.U. coupons are in groups of six and smaller. You cannot exchange less than eight points, or multiples of eight, I understand. That means that you have to do a lot more calculation than is really necessary, and I believe the scheme would be simplified if the lower limit of points was six, and not eight. Why the figure of eight has been fixed I do not know. This is a small point, but it makes the housewives' task more troublesome and difficult than it need be. In the North of England a lot of stale bread is sometimes bought. What happens to bread that bakers cannot sell on the ration? Can it be sold off the ration to people who are prepared to use it, or must it all go for animal feeding? If it does, that is a leakage and a negative factor in the saving of bread.
On the whole, I accept this scheme as a necessary safeguard. Its necessity has been brought about by the fact that, unlike some other countries, we have been willing to reduce our standards for the sake of countries which are so near the starvation line. It was not a popular thing to have done but, nevertheless, it was the right thing. A few months ago there was a real possibility of millions of Germans in the British occupied zone of Germany dying of starvation. From every point of view, that would have been a disaster. There are people who have felt that this would not have mattered. I have met them; many of us have met them, but I think it would have been disastrous politically, socially, and morally. We are not quite through yet, but if all goes according to plan that disaster will just be averted. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on having had the courage to go on with this scheme.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Durbin: I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food will forgive me if I refer to questions on


which I have written to him as a Member of Parliament. If he felt able to do anything about the subjects I raised with him, I hope he will not mind if I speak of them again, as a useful purpose might be served by discussing them in the House. I feel that the major difficulty of rationing bread has not so far been faced in the Debate. During the war, it was part of my official duties, when the pressure or the enemy upon our shipping was very severe, to look into the problems of bread rationing which, at that time, were under discussion.
The great difficulty that faces any wise and equitable system of bread rationing is the immense difference in the food requirements of individuals. When I say "food requirements," I mean literally the food that is required to maintain the weight and energy of life of different individuals. "Calory requirement" is the technical phrase by which this is discussed among doctors and research workers, who have found out so much about it. It is possible that the Minister of Food has done his best to take account of some of the most obvious differences in the calory requirements of individuals in any population. Those requirements differ according to size, according to rates of growth, according to the output of physical energy. Some attempt has been made to introduce these grounds of difference into the rather complex schedule of rations that is provided for in the present scheme.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) attack the scheme on the ground that it provided for differential rations in the case of bread. It would be in the highest degree disastrous if it did not. Bread is the buffer, as we used to call it in those discussions. It has been the main commodity upon which these differences could be accommodated, and the removal of this main buffer presents us with a grave problem.

Mr. Hogg: Surely, it depends upon the size of the ration. What I was endeavouring to argue was that a system which depended upon keeping children and housewives short was a bad system.

Mr. Durbin: Any system of rationing that applies to the main calory buffer must take account of these great differences that exist between the needs of various individuals according to their size, according to their rate of growth, and according

to their output of physical energy. If the scheme is to be criticised at all, it is on the ground that the principles of differentiation and the categories are not sufficiently complicated, and not that they are too simple.

Mr. Hogg: Surely, the hon. Member will concede that those whose rate of growth is greatest and whose output of energy is greatest include the growing child and the housewife?

Mr. Durbin: The hon. Member for Oxford said that one of the sacred principles laid down in Lord Woolton's schemes was that there should be no differential ration. He criticised the Minister of Food because the present scheme would provide some differentiation. If I may continue with the chief point I wish to make, unfortunately, these obvious sources of difference of size, rate of growth and output of physical energy are not the only, or the most important, source of quantitative difference between persons in their calory requirements. Work that was done some years before the war at the University of Cambridge has shown that there are congenital differences between individuals not associated with their size or output of energy that can cause as much as f 100 per cent. difference in the requirements of those individuals for calories and food to maintain their body weight. That is an extreme difficulty, and a difficulty which brings grave danger into any system of rationing of the calory buffer which is based upon average. In all human probability, these inter-personal differences of calory requirement are not associated with differences of size or output of energy; in all human probability, they are hereditary. If they are hereditary, it means that there are certain families in this country who may need, although they do not differ in size or way of life, twice as much food, twice as large a daily intake of calories, as another family. There is no conceivable system of rationing based Upon averages that can take account of such wide differences.
Fortunately, the laws of heredity are very complicated, and we shall be safe in assuming that those genes that determine these matters will average themselves out, even within a small group like the family. There will be only perhaps one family in 20, or one family in a 100 that will,


aggregated as a family, require much more food than other families. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food would agree with me that even if there is one family in a 100 in this country, or if there is only one house in a street of a 100 houses, where there is genuine shortage of food, where health is affected, where weight is affected, and where the first signs of famine are appearing, it would go a long way, and a wide way, to discredit the scheme that stands before us today.
I therefore press upon him most earnestly to consider whether it would be possible to find some method whereby the assessment of malnutrition—by modern methods there is a very accurate and sensitive diagnosis—could be made available. I ask whether there cannot be some provision, some degree of elasticity, within the bread rationing scheme, to take account of what we hope and believe, and the laws of large numbers led us to expect, is a tiny proportion of our citizens, whose health, power and physical and mental energy will be affected, not because they are greedy but because their hereditary calory requirements are high. I make that appeal to him to consider setting up some method of appeal, or some form of medical diagnosis that will save us from the shame, and him from the difficulties, that will arise, if there are starving families in our midst.
The second point, to which I am not sure I am entitled to refer because it goes perhaps a little wide of the subject under discussion, is that it has always been held that the rationing of bread would throw another problem into the forefront of the stage. That other problem is the problem of potatoes. Potatoes will become the main unrationed food. It is to be expected that, in so far as there are savings under the bread rationing scheme, there will be a great increase in the buying of potatoes. It is held that the rationing of bread can only be made effective if it is accompanied by some arrangement to secure an equitable distribution of potatoes. I have no knowledge of the statistics of the estimated crops or of the forecasts, but I hope and trust, and I feel sure, that my right hon. Friend will keep firmly in his mind the position that our potato supplies and potato stocks will reach in the early summer of next

year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of what I have said on behalf of an unrecognised but important minority of our people who may, through no fault of their own, find themselves genuinely short of food. It is on their behalf that I have made my intervention this evening.

9.25 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I listened with great interest to the extremely well-informed speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin). I hope that the Minister of Food will now at once grant a certificate of malnutrition to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who, I am sure, must be one of the hereditary cases, he is so thin.
I wish to address myself to the subject of Northern Ireland, which has a very special position in this connection. We have no desire to escape our share of any economies in bread and flour that may be necessary—if they are necessary. The case against their being necessary has already been put with matchless ability, as I think. I do not propose to discuss that aspect of it, as I stand by the speeches which have been made from our Front Bench. I want to discuss the method, and particularly as it is applied to the Province of Northern Ireland. Few people realise how radically different the position is there. We already have control of bread and flour. For years, bread and flour have been limited and controlled, Northern Ireland has been a special area since 1942. The reason was that flour, being supported by British funds, made certain people think they were entitled to set up a brisk and profitable enterprise of smuggling into Eire That was a state of things with which no one would have the slightest sympathy, and so a system of control of bread and flour was instituted in 1942. It is done through the divisional food officer, who controls the amount which is allowed to different areas and to different bakers. I would emphasise that in 1943 a cut, was put on to the bread and flour of Northern Ireland which was proportional and much more severe than that which it is proposed to put on now.
I would ask that we should not be brought into this new system, which is foreign to us, when we have already had a system of flour and bread control operating for several years. The system


has worked well. My suggestion is: Exempt Northern Ireland from the operation of the ration scheme with coupons, for whatever is the minimum period, and see whether the present system works equally well. Cut down the amount of bread and flour that we are allowed, by whatever is the appropriate percentage, to show that we shall not have any advantage over the rest of the country. I ask the Minister to let that system run for a minimum period so that it can be tested. I anticipate that criticisms will be made of this system, not unnaturally. It will be said that it lacks the essentials of the coupon system and that there may be favoured customers who would get under-the-counter bread. When we had the heavy cut in 1943 there were no serious complaints. I certainly did not have any complaints from my constituents, of whom there are 90,000. They can feel the tightening of their belts, or unfairness, just as well as anybody else.
If we worked the system on a cut in 1943, the system can be worked on a lesser cut in 1946. It would have a further advantage, in my submission. I hope I have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. If he tried out this much simplified system of bread and flour control in an area which is so contained as Northern Ireland, and which is accustomed to it—it contains a big urban population, in Belfast, smaller urban populations. and country districts—it would be most valuable experience for the Ministry of Food. I do not suggest that if it is not successful it should be prolonged, but I would say that it should be given a trial to see how it works, because the system of the coupon is one which is particularly unfortunate for Northern Ireland owing to local conditions. I view the application of this scheme to Northern Ireland with the very gravest apprehension, and I will explain why.
In Great Britain, most bread is bought over the counter of the baker's shop, but most of the bread in Northern Ireland—over 70 per cent.—is distributed by people who are called bread servers. They are not known in Great Britain, and they differ from other bakery workers in that they are not merely the employees of the baker but they act also as commission agents and, in most cases, as retail traders. The vehicle they use is

owned by the baker, but the bread servers are responsible for the sales and have to order the goods they require. Control of the bread servers by the bakers is quite impossible, and in many cases the bakers do not know the names of the customers to whom the bread servers go. Very often the customers live long distances from the bakers. The bread servers have never had any experience of dealing with coupons. They are very talented people, but their talent is not altogether in the direction which would be required in dealing with coupons. The average bread server, going round with a cart provided by the baker for whom he works, will have from 2,000 to 3,000 coupons to deal with every day. These men work in the open and rain is frequently experienced in Ulster, and occasionally snow and sleet. It will not be easy for even the most accomplished person to deal with 2,000 or 3,000 coupons a day under those conditions.
I make this appeal because the attitude, particularly of hon. Gentlemen opposite, towards Northern Ireland is not always as marked as I am sure it is felt. Northern Ireland has not only provided all its own food but a vast surplus for Great Britain. Unlike Eire, which has never had any effective rationing, Northern Ireland has been subjected to rationing. Northern Ireland provided enough surplus eggs for the egg ration of Greater London. She provided vegetables, cattle, liquid milk for Scotland, milk products and so on, for all the rest of the United Kingdom. At the same time, country people in Ulster ate far less than their meat ration—only about 50 per cent.—and far less than their cheese ration. I am not asking that they should have any advantage in the amount, but I urge as strongly as I may that a system which has been worked successfully for four years, and which has been subjected successfully to the application of a cut, should be retained and not changed for one of great complication which, with some knowledge of the country, I earnestly suggest will be very difficult, if not impossible, to work under our peculiar conditions.
I believe that the suggestion I have made—to allow the cut to be imposed through the control of flour by the food control officer—will not be opposed by the Northern Ireland Food Officer nor the


Government of Northern Ireland, and it is, in fact, supported by the master bakers and also by the Cooperative Baking Society of Northern Ireland, and by the trade union most vitally concerned, the trade union of the bread servers. When the Minister referred to a comparatively small section of the bakers, it is not a comparatively small section of the bakers of Northern Ireland. It is, I think, every baking interest, master bakers, individual baking firms and cooperative bakeries. All consider that the situation would be far better if, whatever cut is required, is put on by the system to which we are accustomed, the system which we know will work, rather than by the new system suggested, which we all fear may prove to be quite impracticable.

9.36 p.m

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I want to congratulate the Minister of Food on what I am quite certain will be a most effective scheme. I confess that when I heard talk about the possibility of bread rationing, I felt very nervous about it, because I was afraid that whatever ration was allocated, it would mean that there would be more waste, because people are apt to take up their complete allocation when they have a ration. However, when I heard of his brilliant scheme—[Laughter]—yes. I know the Opposition think it funny. I shall refer to a few things clone to food in the past by the Opposition when they were on the Government side which were not so funny, but for the moment I want to deal with the point that I think this is a most brilliant scheme, which will prevent waste since, when people do not need the extra bread, they can use it in points, and vice versa. That will prevent waste and will get what we want, which is equitable distribution.
The Opposition are suffering from the tremendous shock of being faced with a Government that really care about the completely equitable distribution of food to the entire population of Britain because, up to the time of the war, when we went into the Government, it was never possible for my party—there was never a Government strong enough to do it—to get a fair distribution of food. Indeed, one of the difficulties from which we are suffering today, if it can be called a difficulty, is a thing on which we on this side of the House heartily congratulate ourselves—that the vast mass of the people of Britain

are getting so much more food than they had before the war. I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) wanted to wait, not at all surprised. He has followed on the line taken by Lord Woolton when he was Minister of Food at the beginning of the war. At that time I had the honour to be the Chairman of the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad everybody in the Opposition is so pleased. I only mentioned it, although I am proud of it, because it entitled me to go on many delegations to the then Minister of Food on the subject of rationing.

Mr. Speaker: I' am not quite sure at what the hon. Lady is directing her arguments. We are discussing this bread rationing scheme. I have allowed the Debate to be pretty wide, but we cannot discuss rationing as a whole, or past rationing. We have to relate it to the Order, and to whether the scheme is necessary and whether it is workable.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I am sorry, Sir. May I come back to the right hon. Member for Woodford who talked about waiting? If we waited, as is the desire of the Opposition, until the moment came when there might be, if not a shortage altogether, as has been so clearly demonstrated by the Minister of Food, at least a shortage in certain areas—if we waited until that time came, then what I am sure the Opposition would not mind, but what we should very much mind, Would happen. In some parts of Britain amongst some sections of the population, probably the poorest, there would be a shortage of bread.

Mr. E. P. Smith: On a Point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Lady in Order in saying that it would please these Benches if in some part of Britain there was a shortage of bread?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is out of Order. After all, lots of thing can please lots of people. If it was said that it would please the hon. Member, that, of course, would be a reflection on the hon. Member, but one may accuse a party.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: It is not the first time today that a party has been accused. The right hon. Member for Woodford seemed to be afraid that we


had a skeleton in our cupboard, a skeleton of secrecy. I suggest that it is not a skeleton in our cupboard, but a jack-in-the-box which the Opposition bring out whenever possible in order to try to create unpopularity about some Measure brought forward by the Labour Government.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) suggested that the children and the housewives should have a larger ration. Some of us suggested that to the Minister of Food last week. I asked a Question myself about it. Only three days ago, the moment he saw that there was a rather larger quantity of bread and flour in the country than he had feared would be the case, he immediately announced an addition to the bread ration for children. He pointed out, quite rightly, that that ration would, in fact, be an increase in the ration for the most hard pressed housewives. The most hard pressed housewives are those with the largest families, who are often prevented by reason of young children at home from going out to British Restaurants for meals. The moment the Minister found there was rather more grain in the country than we had anticipated, he dealt with that point by increasing the ration for children under eleven.
I hope that when he finds, as I fervently hope he will, that there is still more than he anticipated, he will take into account those workers, not necessarily manual workers, who have to take packed meals. A number of people in the country who go out to work, for some reason are unable to get food from canteens or from British Restaurants, or indeed anything but what they take themselves. Some of those families will find it a little hard, when the breadwinner is not one of the people who comes into the category of manual workers.
One other point I should like to urge on my right hon. Friend again is the question of the change of bread ration points, the B.U. points, for ordinary points. I put it to him that the people who will have to do this, when they want either to change bread ration points to ordinary points or vice versa, will have to go to the food office. In nearly every case it will be the housewife who will have to go. She may not have to go; she may be able to do it by post, but it will be

quite a serious extra charge on her if, every time she wants to change a unit of eight, she has to use a stamp in sending them. I would like to urge my right hon. Friend to bring still greater pressure on the Postmaster-General to get him to allow this, because that concession will be very much appreciated by the housewife. I shall not pretend that there are no housewives who are worried about bread rationing, although the extent of it has been enormously exaggerated. It has apparently been found necessary to have all sorts of external and additional ways of advertising the objections of the housewives. But all of us feel, I am sure Opposition Members must feel too, that the real test of what people in the country feel is the post bag of the Member of Parliament, and I do not believe that anybody's post bag has seriously upset them on account of bread rationing. A large number of people who do not eat much bread will be glad of the new rationing scheme, which enables them to get more points, and we have been promised more food as a result of the American Loan. I am perfectly certain that the scheme will work, and that the Opposition will be much disappointed by the housewives of the country.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Beeclunan: I greatly envy the certainty of mind enjoyed by the hon. lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould). The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said, I think rightly, that he proposed to judge this matter on its merits. In forming a judgment on this matter it has been necessary to follow this Debate very closely. I have been most amazed to find in this matter, as indeed so often in matters of this kind how great an uncertainty there is about fundamental facts. On the occasion of the first Debate, the right hon. Gentleman told us that there was great uncertainty about how much wheat reserve there was in the pipeline prewar. I find it very difficult to judge at the outset whether this datum line of 800,000 tons is one which need cause us great alarm or not. This, at any rate, I do know. There is in the country, or in those parts of the country that I know, very great apprehension on this subject. I differ greatly from the hon. Member for North Hendon. My views do not come from my post bag but from going about in my con-


stituency. Everywhere one goes people approach one with apprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would like to know if the hon. Gentleman who shakes his head has recently been in West Cornwall or in the Scilly Isles.
There can be no doubt at all about this apprehension. It is in no way inflamed by the London newspapers. In West Cornwall, it is quite true, we read the London Press, as hon. Gentlemen read the "Spectator" or the "New Statesman," but I cannot say that the local Press, which we particularly regard, have been unduly inflammatory. There is no doubt at all that there are great psychological hazards in imposing on our people a rationing system of this sort because the idea of free access to bread has for so long, and through two wars, formed part of the climate of freedom of our people. Certainly in an agricultural area such as that which I represent, there are special reasons for apprehension. The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) spoke about roundsmen. In the district which I know the roundsmen may take six hours on his round at present. Under the new scheme he will be occupied on his round far into the night. Although we have this relief, that coupons may be sent by post, which I think is a very wise proposal, we shall find great difficulty in rural areas where food offices are often far away from a person's home.
There are these great uncertainties, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food has today given us a clear purpose for bringing in this scheme. I am very glad that he has not repeated what seemed to be the purpose originally—to impress America. I am getting a little tired of government by gesture—" Give up Egypt to impress Russia; give up bread to impress America." I believe that when the Government give up Whitehall they will have impressed Cornwall. There are some factors which, if the Minister had waited a little while, might have become more certain. The Minister rightly referred with appreciation to the way in which our Canadian friends had allowed their stocks to become depleted. I recollect that the Minister, speaking in this House on 2nd July, said that one of the most important factors was the estimate of the harvest to be formed by the Canadian Government officially in a fortnight's time. I do not know whether he has received that esti-

mate. I think we ought to be told. From what I hear, the estimate should be helpful and promising.
Then, the Minister rightly says, "We may have bad weather. What about our own harvest in August, which is to provide 75,000 tons? "There is always an uncertainty about the weather, and it seems to me that one of our difficulties is that, when we get into an atmosphere of planning, we try to plan for everything. We are all planners now, even all Liberals, and I use that comprehensive phrase with all humility; but we all agree that the doors of the Manchester School have been closed, like those of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. I agree that we are in this atmosphere of planning, but we cannot plan for everything. We have to meet the vagaries of the weather.
The last time the Minister spoke he told us that one of the great difficulties was that the Americans may not send us what they promised. I must say that I thought that a little, I will not say insulting, but unkind, to the Americans. After all, they did let us have this loan in a very handsome way. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says, there may be strikes in America. There may be strikes anywhere at any time. I was interested to find that the Minister, in his speech today, did not repeat that one of his troubles was that we might get inflation in America. Surely, he has bought ahead for, at any rate, the next two months, and, if prices have not been fixed for the period into which we are now entering, the officials of his Department have been very peculiar in their method of business. The great point, however, which the Minister makes today, and here we get down to something quite definite, is that this is a policy of insurance. He said on the first occasion that, if our stocks get below 800,000 tons, then we must have a scheme, and I understood that it was not merely a case of the economies that would be made, but because, if we had a ration scheme, distribution could be more easily effected. It is precisely in the month of August that this does not apply. During the month that is coming, in the area that I represent, the town of St. Ives will receive four or even five times its present population. There is going to be a great movement of our population in this very month, and I say to this Minister that he will not cross.


the ravine by means of his rationing scheme. It does not appear, from what the Minister said today, that the scheme will really be needed, but, if ever there was a time not to do it, that time is the coming few weeks.
The country has been asked to save bread, and, on that subject, I will give the Minister one reason for thinking that there would have been a great response to such a plea. In 1938, the weekly consumption of bread was about 80,000 tons; in 1946, it is 115,000 tons. The reason for that is that when there is a shortage of other foods, people make up with bread. The Minister, quite rightly, is helping us with fruit and other varieties of food. There is thus every reason to suppose that an appeal to save bread would have succeeded, and I should like to have heard that it was possible to consider having one or two breadless days as an alternative
Finally, I will say this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Encouraged by that applause my final sentence may be somewhat extended. However, although one is always encouraged by applause, I do not propose to allow that encouragement to prevent other people from speaking, even though I know that the House would prefer to listen to me. I would say to the Minister that, for my part, I shall go into the Division Lobby against his scheme. Although he is right in what he says about being prepared, he is wrong, from what he himself has said in imposing this rationing scheme now.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I would not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that I know something about the distributive trade. The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) put forward a plea on behalf of the small baker in the village. We know that the small baker in the village has been seriously handicapped during the war owing to lack of staff, but that applied equally to the small grocer and the small butcher who has had to deal with rationing during the past six years. We know that no occupation in this country has contributed more men to the Armed Forces than the distributive trade.
We have heard a good deal in this Debate about queues, but where are the

queues to be found? Not outside the shops where there are rationed goods. The queues are outside bakers, fishmongers, and vegetable shops, who all sell unrationed goods. People go there in the hope that they will be in time to get something, but where the goods are rationed and people are registered they know that they will get the goods. That is why I think that the Minister has made a mistake in not allowing the baker to have registered customers. If people had to register with a baker, they would know that they would get their bread and the baker would know what amount was necessary for supplying his customers, and it would prevent people going from one baker to another, and, probably, a good deal of wastage.
I may be more fortunate than many hon. Members who have had to present petitions. So far, I have had only two letters, one from a baker and the other from a lady. People in my constituency are not behind in presenting petitions; I have received petitions from villages about the lack of water supplies and about medical services. I have also had petitions from farmers about the use of a water mill, but I have had no petitions about bread rationing. The people in my Division believe that it is the fairest way, and that everyone will get a fair share. If the rationing of bread was introduced in the same way as rationing has been introduced for groceries and butchers' meat, it would be better for all round.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I am very glad to have been able to catch your eye, in this Debate, Mr. Speaker, because I have a very special interest in this subject. Like the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), I can claim to some practical knowledge of the subject. Before the war I was engaged in a firm which produces and distributes bread on a large national scale. During the war it was my privilege to work in the Ministry of Food for five years, where I was engaged upon the maintenance of the supply of bread in this country. I consider that the present rationing scheme is ill advised. I believe that if the Minister's aim is, as he has declared, to save a percentage of flour anywhere under 10 per cent., that can be achieved by means other than invoking a scheme of this nature. I believe that since the extract rate has been raised to 85 per


cent., bread has become less palatable. Palatability is one of the greatest governing factors of bread consumption in this country, and there is no doubt that the decrease in palatability has cut down bread sales.
Furthermore, I have not heard any mention of what is to happen with regard to the miscellaneous users of flour. Something like 75 per cent. of the flour which is used in this country goes to bakeries for the production of bread and cakes, and about 3.5 per cent, goes to the manufacture of biscuits. What is happening to the other 20-odd per cent.? Some is used in catering establishments, but some of it is used for purposes other than food. I suggest that perhaps a very material saving in flour could be achieved by a very rigorous control of that part of our flour stocks which goes to manufacturers of things other than human food.
I suggest also that the Minister should rectify the mistake that was made on 2nd May when sugar allowances to bakers were cut clown. Sugar, I believe, is the greatest single flour saving factor in a bakery, since by its use a batter containing the minimum quantity of flour becomes the base for other foodstuffs, such as dried fruit, dried milk and dried egg, when we have any. At all events, through the medium of sugar and a modicum of flour, a wholesome volume is produced, and, after all, the bakers' function is to provide a volume of good food.
I believe also that at the same time the bakers should have been taken into the confidence of the Minister and told, "This is the position. We have to save up to 10 per cent. of our flour. We shall cut down the miscellaneous users and we ask you to accept a flour cut. We will do all we can to give you the sugar that we can spare." Indeed, when the sugar cut was made on 2nd May the then Minister of Food, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith), said that there was no sugar shortage. At that time he gave additional sugar allocations to manufacturers of sweets, aerated waters and ice cream. If the sugar that was given to those other trades had been given to the bakery trade, the flour position would have been substantially better today than it is.
I believe also, that if the bakers had been told this was the position, they would have accepted a flour cut of, say,

5 per cent., and have guaranteed the Minister, provided he had given them the necessary accessories, that they could have provided a volume equal to the present volume produced by the present flour because the absence of sugar in the bakers' shops has meant they have had to concentrate on the producticn of lines carrying a much greater volume of flour.
If there had been a real crusade directed at the housewives and the children of this country in favour, not only of the prevention of bread waste but actual bread saving, the results would have been astounding. If through the schools, through the wonderful women's organisations, women's guilds and so forth, each one had been asked, in this emergency, to take a pledge somewhat along these lines:
 I promise to eat only the bread I need, and I will not waste a crumb, or allow one to be wasted, if I can prevent it,
I am sure there would have been a very material saving of flour, which would have gone a long way towards achieving the Minister's figure of 10 per cent. In addition to that, we are to have a whole host of new officials to enforce the scheme. If a modicum of those officials were used to ensure that bread waste becomes a social crime, and that the feeding of bread to animals and poultry is cut down to a minimum, they would really be achieving something.
I consider the present scheme is a bad one. It is a bad one for this fundamental reason: The consumption of flour products in this country is not uniform; there is the climatic factor all the way from the South to the North. There is no comparison between the amount of flour necessary in, say, the counties on the South coast of England and those in the North of Scotland. What is happening? By mean of this rationing scheme a uniform standard is imposed, and the people in the South will be entitled to more than they need, whereas the people in the North will be entitled to less than they require. I wish to address a few words especially to Scottish Members. The high tea in Scotland, which is provided largely from the baker's shop, is not the whimsy of the Scot; it is the result of natural laws; climatic considerations play a full part in that. This scheme—and this will appeal to Scottish Members and Members


of Northern constituencies—constitutes a dire threat to the high tea, which is the principal meal in the North; it constitutes a dire threat to the Scottish morning roll; and the Scottish morning roll is anything but a luxury, it is a necessity.
This scheme has been foisted upon a long suffering trade at too short notice. Only last week a form was circulated to bakers, calling for a production of cards for customers and sales books for the roundsmen. Something like 10 million cards will be needed if the scheme is to be adequately equipped, in addition to many thousands of these sales books. How can they possibly be produced in the time? They cannot be produced in the time. The Ministry of Food must be content with chaotic conditions ensuing for some considerable time after the scheme is launched, and it will not be the fault of the bakers. I most heartily endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to the bakers of this country, to do what they can to back up the scheme. We Scottish Members in turn have appealed to our own Scottish bakers to do exactly the same thing. These bakers are working under the greatest difficulties. At the very lowest estimate 20,000 new sales hands will be required, and 20,000 new vehicles, if this scheme is to be adequately run. Where are they coming from? It is quite impossible to equip the bakers in the time, either with staff or with vehicles.
I would like to say one word in conclusion concerning the baking trade. The baking trade has been very much in the public eye in recent weeks. From my own personal knowledge I can say that during the worst of the bombing they stuck to their posts, and to them perhaps more than to any other civilian trade can be given the credit for helping to maintain public morale. If bread supplies had failed we should probably have lost the war. The bakers of Britain did their best for us; I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food and this House will do their best for the bakers.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I am prompted to intervene very briefly in this Debate by the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who

I regret is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). The hon. Member for Oxford, in his usual braying manner, referred to hon. Members on this side as "Lobby fodder." I am very glad to say that never have I felt more justified in going through the Lobby on the side of the Government than I do tonight in this case of bread rationing. The hon. Member for Oxford also made a remark about starving children. The last starving children I saw were in Germany, where I went on a brief visit, and I saw emaciated under-nourished children. What sprang to my mind was not the contrast between those children and the children of Britain today, but a comparison between those children of undernourished Germany and the children of the distressed areas not so very many years ago. Regarding the point made by the hon. Member for Wood Green——

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman is attributing too much to me; he means the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Austin: On the contrary, when one of my hon. Friends was speaking the hon. Member for Wood Green asked whether it would not be possible to eliminate bread rationing by voluntary effort. May I remind him of efforts made through the Press and over the radio to persuade the people of this country to avoid wasting bread? Does he remember the photographs that appeared in the Press of heaps of bread that had been thrown away? It is my view that the Government have never before adequately handled this question of bread thrown away into the dustbins. There is an hon. Member of this House whom I know very well, and I have his authority to quote this, if I may give a personal example. He lives in a house that has been requisitioned by the council, and shares it with two other tenants. Some four months ago he had occasion to write to the council and ask for a separate dustbin, because he did not want to be associated with his co-tenants, who were piling up bread in the dustbin. Although I agree that there are good qualities about everyone, about hon. Gentlemen in this House and about some of the Tory Party, there is an irresponsibility about most people which allows them to waste bread recklessly in that manner. It is because of that that


such an Order as this has had to be introduced.
If I may give another illustration, I was in my Division a few days ago—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very grateful for the encouragement of hon. Members opposite—and the only point that was raised on bread rationing was put to me by a miner, who asked what about his chickens?
It was obvious that that man, in common with many thousands of people, had been buying bread in the most lavish manner, not for the purpose of feeding his household, but for the purpose of feeding his chickens. That will be done away with. I refer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food to a point I raised a little while ago—the question of flour being used needlessly. Is she satisfied that the flour, which she mentioned as being condemned as unfit for human use, is actually unfit for human use? Cannot some scientific method be evolved of saving that flour? May I ask her to look into the question of other commodities, such as milk, or any other food commodity, that is being used for industrial purposes? I am indebted to the Government, as most people are in this country, for their courage in ignoring the hostile propaganda of the Opposition and of the Press, in resolutely going forward with this measure of wise administration to safeguard the health and welfare of the people.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Until the last few moments of the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin), I thought he was going to secure the distinction of being the first Member on that side in this Debate to make a speech which did not contain some criticism of the Government. But he succumbed to the temptation of finding that this bread rationing, which we are asked to support tonight, and which we propose to vote against, is not right. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food made a speech tonight, in answer to the very powerful accusation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), which fell very sadly short of his effort the other day. In the first speech that he made as Minister of Food, he secured from hon. Members on that side of the House what, I think, can rightly be described as nothing less than an ovation. Thinking it over

afterwards, I asked myself if hon. Members realised what they had been cheering so loudly. [An HON. MEMBER: "What answer did the right hon. Gentleman get? "] One could have understood their emotion if the right hon. Gentleman had been announcing some great victory; if he had been announcing the abolition of rationing, and an enormous increase in the variety of the food he was placing at the disposal of the people. Instead of which, he had been announcing another restriction to be placed upon the overburdened housewives of this country.
The right hon. Gentleman started off the occupancy of his present office with, I think, a considerable amount of good will on both sides. The country realised that he was taking on a pretty difficult job, a task that had been made more difficult by the blunders, not, particularly, of his predecessor, but, certainly, of his predecessor's colleagues. This country is renowned for kindness, tolerance, and its desire to give a man a chance. If the right hon. Gentleman finds himself today in the position which he does, I venture to say that he has only himself to blame. He has offended the housewives of this country. Instead of securing cooperation, he has incurred the hostility of a section of industry upon which his scheme very largely depends for its success. That is due entirely to the way in which he has treated the country and the bakers. We have pressed him repeatedly, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition repeated it today, to take the country into his confidence. The hon. Member for Stretford gave a very good illustration of the results of the failure to take these steps. He called attention to the fact that this scheme and these appeals for saving of bread had failed. Why did they fail? They failed because the country had not been given the real facts. It was not until we, with great difficulty, extracted specific figures the other day about 31st August that the country knew any details about the situation with which it was faced.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech the other day, said that if we want to be effective we must dramatise events, we must dramatise facts and figures—well, he has lamentably failed to do so. A great deal of the trouble which he is up against today is due to that failure to give facts and his passion for secrecy. What could


be more fantastic than what we heard from him the other day? Could anyone have conceived of a Minister of the Crown standing at that Box and saying—such is his passion for secrecy—that it is not in the national interest to disclose figures—figures which his colleague had previously published a month ago? The same thing is true in his treatment of the bakers. He told this House just before his departure to America, when he first hinted at the imminence of bread rationing, that he had been authorised by his colleagues to engage in full preparation and consultations with a whole list of various interests, including the bakery trade. What was the result? He held no consultations—no full consultation with the bakery trade. All he did was to summon them on 4th June and say, "We have decided to bring in rationing. Here is the machinery. What do you think about it?" That is not proper consultation.
I understand that the bakery trade have put forward alternatives—certainly an important section of the bakery trade, the multiple bakers, have taken the trouble to put forward alternatives. I am in no position to judge whether these alternatives are good or not. I have not got the full panoply of the Civil Service. These particular proposals were put forward on 26th June, and one would have thought that, having promised full consideration with the bakery trade, the right hon. Gentleman would at least have taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with what the proposals were. They were seen by his Ministry on 25th June, but he confessed that he had not looked at them until 9th July. Is that consultation with the trade? It is much worse. Not only did he not look at them until 9th July, but when he went down to address a meeting at a by-election at Bexley Heath, on 11th July, what did he say? [Interruption.] I am depending on the report in the "Daily Herald." The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said:
 The alternative scheme to rationing was simply to raise the price of bread.
As a matter of fact, the scheme which had been submitted to the Ministry on 26th June, and which the right hon. Gentleman confesses he did not see until 9th July, contained no mention of price at all. Yet the right hon. Gentleman goes to Bexley Heath and accuses the bakers of putting forward an alternative to

rationing which meant the raising of prices——

Mr. Strachey: I stated in the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred that the bakers had put forward two suggestions. One was official, which is the one he has in mind, and was with regard to cutting down supplies of flour to bakers from the millers, which meant that bakers would have to cut down their customers as they thought fit—with all the grave Objections of under-the-counter trade and all the rest of it. The other proposal which was made, as I was careful to point out, was not put by the bakers officially, but by a number of their spokesmen, who were also reported in the Press. In this case, they said that the price of, first, cake and then bread, should be raised. These are precisely the two alternatives which have been put forward.

Mr. Hudson: Having read the words I have just quoted, would anyone gather that impression? The unofficial suggestion about a rise in price was not made to the right hon. Gentleman at all; it was made to his predecessor months previously——

Mr. Strachey: No.

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) gave an instance of the muddle and disorderly way the problem has been treated as a result of lack of consultation with the trade. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor announced a cut in sugar which the trade told him was wrong, and would result, not in a decrease in the consumption of flour, but an increase. The right hon. Gentleman now realises that the trade was right and that his Department was wrong. What has he done? Restored the cut in sugar. He is not going to do it on the 28th of this month, but the 18th of next month.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she can give an assurance that all the forms will reach the areas and bakers in time to begin the operation of this scheme by Sunday. According to my information, it is very unlikely that that will happen. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech merely recovered the ground which he covered in his speech on 3rd July. He brought forward no new arguments at all, except


one about the position of the wheat supply in September, which I will deal with in a moment.
The gravamen of the charge which we levy against the Government, and one of the reasons why we shall vote against this Order, is that the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing today to convince us that this scheme is either good or necessary. Since he spoke on 3rd July, conditions throughout the world have appreciably improved. He made no attempt to answer the very large number of questions that were put to him during the last Debate, and which to this day have gone unanswered. We asked him, during the last Debate, to explain to us where all this supply of wheat had gone; we asked him to let us know the figures of the demands that had been made by various countries to the Combined Food Board, so that we in the House and the people in the country could have the opportunity of judging how the food available in the world was being distributed.
We say, quite frankly, that the figures that have been published hitherto—in the White Paper, for example, that was issued to the House earlier this year—are wholly unreliable. This is the only country with really accurate statistics. In respect of all other countries, they are merely guesses. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that, when one reads these figures of the so called average number of calories that are available to people in countries in Europe, the only accurate or semi-accurate figures that can be obtained are for the people living in towns. The people who live in the country eat as well as they did pre-war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with the possible exception of Greece, and I am not speaking of ex-enemy countries. Not only do they eat practically as well as pre-war, hut they feed their animals very nearly as well as they did pre-war. It is only the people in the towns who are really suffering. The gravamen of the charge against His Majesty's Government is that they have been lax, and not tough enough in using this argument in the negotiations that they have held with foreign countries in Washington. In fact, we in this country are being asked, out of our own meagre resources, to provide extra for the townspeople which their own countrymen have failed to provide for them.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Mr. Speaker gave a very clear Ruling that it was not going to be in Order in this Debate to deal with the food position of countries all over the world. Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a point of this kind when the only effect of it will be that the hon. Lady will have to go into matters which Mr. Speaker has ruled to he out of Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to proceed into details.

Mr. Hudson: Just before you took the Chair, Sir, Mr. Speaker said, in answer to a point of Order raised while he was in the Chair, that it was in Order to discuss the reasons why this Order had to he brought in, and one of the reasons ——

Major Bruce: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon these matters, I take it that it will be in order for us on this side to refer to the remarks he has made?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly, it will be in Order to refer to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but possibly not to say anything more on the subject

Mr. Hudson: All I repeat is that the British people, the British housewives, are being asked today to pay for the inefficiency of the means and methods of collection abroad. I take just one further example. We have heard today references to the condition of children in Germany. One of the reasons we arc short of 200,000 tons today—and it is the shortage of the final 200,000 tons that is the cause of all the difficulty—is that it was the price that the Leader of the House says he had to pay in Washington in order to induce the United States Government to assume the responsibility for providing 120,000 tons a month for the British zone in Germany. I would like to ask—and we are entitled to ask—how is it that Russia has been left out of all these calculations? I should like to ask the hon. Lady if we should need bread rationing today if Russia were prepared to treat Germany as a single economic unit instead of having it split up. Has the right hon. Gentleman asked Russia to make her contribution? Is there any reason why this country and other coun-


tries of the United Nations should be asked to pool their resources for the Combined Food Board, and Russia be the only country left out? Is there any reason why Russia should not only refuse to pool her resources, but should refuse to allow Hungary and Rumania, two great grain producing countries, to pool their resources——

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this argument is not wholly undesirable, but I would like to point out that Mr. Speaker ruled that it would not be in Order for hon. Members to go into specific cases in specific countries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker ruled that it would be in Order to refer to the causes of shortage, and I understand it is to that point that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking. It would not be in Order to discuss the position of Germany, as such.

Mr. Hudson: If I may, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would say that if we on this side were returned, relations with Russia would immediately improve

Mr. Alpass: What would the right hon. Gentleman do with Russia?

Mr. Tiffany: Will it be in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if other hon. Members speak on relationships with Russia?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not be in Order.

Miss Jennie Lee: Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock) rose——[Interruption].

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that it is impossible to know what is going to be said until the right hon. Gentleman has said it.

Miss Lee: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could you give your guidance, please? References are being made which create prejudices. Are we to have the headlines without the factual arguments which would give substance to them?

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask if something can be done about the increasing irritability of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Hudson: I wanted to get back to what is happening in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, in his speech quite rightly divided the problem into what is going to happen up to 31st August and what is going to happen after that date. As far as what is going to happen up to 31st August is concerned, we on this side of the House were very relieved when we were assured that stocks in the next few days were not going to be as low as otherwise we might have assumed. All I can say is to repeat what I said earlier, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food would have done much better, both for his own sake and everyone else's, to have said much earlier what the actual stocks are. He said today that he could not do so with exactitude; but no one is asking him to give the figures to within 5,000 tons. He knows, and all of his officers know, and anyone who has had anything to do with a Government Department knows, that, in fact, estimates are made for two, three, five weeks, ahead of what are going to be the spot supplies in wheat. It does not follow that they are always right. Sometimes the figures are up, and sometimes they are down. But it would do no harm to let the House know what the stocks are going to be, what is going to happen, and whether there would be any necessity for a reduction in the ration in that period.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, with all due respect, seemed to me to do a bit of squirming, and when he was pinned down he talked about what was going to happen in the event of a failure of world harvests. He said that he had dealt with that matter in reply to a question by myself on 3rd July. It is true that he did, and it is also obvious that, if all the harvests in the world failed, whatever he wanted to do, he could not avoid reducing the rations. But that was not the question we asked him, or the question he dealt with on 3rd July. What he said on 3rd July in answering the question was, that he would not reduce the ration before 31st August, even if—and this is the important point—the assumptions on which he had based his case that he would have 800,000 tons after the end of August, did not come off. It was on that basis, as the House will remember, that later on I withdrew the remarks I had made—when he said that there would be no reduction in any con-


ceivable circumstances during the period. He said nothing about that today.
What we would like to know on this side of the House is, how he reconciles that statement and that pledge with what was said by the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, on Saturday. Because the Minister of Agriculture evidently was labouring under the same impression that I had been under—and I think most people had—that, if these various supplies did not come in, and if his assumptions did not come off, necessarily, there would have to be a reduction in the rations. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is reported to have said:
 For should there be any possibility of the United States defaulting on the 456,000 tons of wheat we are expecting, or should the British farmers fail to deliver, during the next three months, something like 575,000 tons of wheat—a figure higher than they have ever delivered before—then I am afraid our bread rationing would not only be necessary but the scale of allowances per individual would have to be reduced.
I do not know what relations exist inside the Government between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, but I can assure the House that if, during the time my right hon. Friend was Prime Minister, I had said something different from what Lord Woolton was saying, there would have been trouble. We would like to know which is right, and if the Minister of Agriculture had any justification for saying what he did; or whether he was letting the cat out of the bag, as did the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education.
Now I come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the harvests, He said, in answer to a speech made by my right hon. Friend, that it was too much to expect that during the month of September we should be able to get in 150,000 tons of wheat from Canada, and, therefore, he said that not only was it necessary to have the rationing scheme in case anything happened during August, but it was more important than ever in case something happened in September. I think I am within the recollection of the House in that. In fact, as circumstances have turned out, and in the light of the estimates of the crops as we now know them, what they call the danger point of 31st August is, in our

submission, the turning point of the tide. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the House to believe that the Canadian elevators were empty, and that the Canadian harvest would not be in time to enable wheat to be shipped by the end of September.

Mr. Strachey: Arrive.

Mr. Hudson: I could not personally believe my ears when I heard the right hon. Gentleman make that statement, and I have been at pains to make inquiries since he made the statement. I am assured there is no foundation at all for the statement, and that actually the Canadian harvest began a week ago. There is, I am told, adequate time to gel: the harvest starting to flow across the Atlantic to arrive here by September if they put their backs into it. [Interruption.] Why should they not? If the Minister of Food cannot put his back into it, at least why not let private individuals who will?
There is an alternative. The harvest in. the Southern States of America has been gathered for sonic time, and the elevators in these particular States are so full that they cannot take any more, and the wheat is being piled up outside. I have also consulted the shipping authorities it: this country, and there are plenty of ships in this country today suitable for carrying wheat, and there is plenty of time to send ships from this country to the other side and to arrange, in the meantime, for wheat to come from the elevators to the ports, and get it over to this country not before the end of September, but before the end of August.
It may be said in reply that this is American wheat to which we are not entitled, but then- is no difficulty at all, as I am assured, in getting that wheat and repaying it from Canadian wheat. If it were free to private enterprise it would be done tomorrow. There is no shred of justification for the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman that rationing is necessary on 21st July because we cannot get 150,000 tons of wheat into this country by September. As a matter of fact, if we cannot get it from the United States and cannot get it from Canada, there is the Mediterranean. The harvest in North Africa and in the South of France has been got in, and. the Government could certainly borrow.


the few necessary thousands of tons, certainly against repayment, just as they could get wheat from the United States.
I come to the final point, which is in regard to the claim that this is a good scheme and a fair scheme because it embodies fair shares for all. It does nothing of the kind. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin) put his finger on one hole. He very rightly said that one of the main difficulties in rationing, and with a bread rationing scheme in particular, was the enormous difference between people in their food requirements. Therefore, we always felt, during the war that it was essential to have some pillar like bread which would serve as a concertina or cushion. The hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) made a similar claim in her speech, She said we attain fair shares for all because we exchange coupons for points, or points for coupons. Actually, so far from it being fair shares for all, the result—whatever the design and intention may have been—is that it is a scheme which results in the utmost unfairness.
It benefits the sedentary worker and the higher income group at the cost of the heavy manual worker. [An HON. MEMBER "Rubbish."] An hon. Member doubts whether that is so. Let us take two illustrations. It so happens I have one from my own constituency. It is the case of a man who happens to be a roundsman. He has a wife, two children under eleven, and two children under five. The normal consumption of bread by this family is six lbs.—three reputed two lb. Loaves?—a day. Under the rationing scheme they will get three and a quarter lbs. The right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady may well say, "All right. They can get the other two or three lbs. by the surrender of points." They can. There is another case of a man and wife in the higher income group who do not eat anything approaching the amount of bread to which they are entitled. They will be able to exchange their surplus coupons for points. The sedentary worker, who is in the higher income group, will get two, three, four or five tins of extra sardines a week. There will be no saving of bread and these people will be that much better off. The wife of the roundsman will have to give up any

claim to sardines. In other words, the Government have brought in a scheme—I do not say they intended to but they certainly have done it—which results in people who do not want all their bread making no saving in what they eat but gaining heavily in points, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton pointed out, people who eat more bread have to give up more points than formerly, Anyone who knows anything about points knows that they are in short supply today.
Really there is no case at all. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman, representing hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, did not take more trouble to find out what would be the effect of-this scheme. He reminds me of the sects which have arisen in all stages of history, even in early Egyptian times, called flagellants. The encyclopedia describes this as the name given to those who scourge themselves or are scourged by way of discipline or penance. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of a flagellant with this difference: instead of scourging himself he is scourging the housewife under this scheme. I can well imagine that the Socialist Party have no objection to scourging housewives for discipline, but I confess I do not understand what the housewife has done to deserve scourging for penance. She has worked harder than almost any other person in the community. To paraphrase a famous sentence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, few have worked so hard for so long for so little. We believe that no case has been made out by the right hon. Gentleman for the necessity for this scheme at the present moment. Although we admit that it would be wise to set up the necessary machinery and to perfect it, we have heard nothing to persuade us that there is any necessity for its introduction and application on 21st July. Because we believe that it is an unsound scheme, and thoroughly unnecessary, we shall go into the Lobby tonight and vote against it.

11.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): May I, first of all, thank the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) for kindly welcoming me back and say how glad I am that hon. Members opposite


were not persuaded to pull their punches this afternoon on account of my slightly discoloured eyes? Fortunately, my cerebration and my tongue are intact. After my right hon. Friend had spoken this afternoon, an hon. Member charged him with having disregarded the Order and having, in fact, disregarded the issue. We have had a Debate on bread before, and I believe that most of the general principles have been well ventilated. Therefore, I intend tonight to address myself to the questions which have been asked by hon. Members today.
The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has just said that my right hon. Friend has said nothing new. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has repeated himself tonight, time after time. He has the effrontery to say that the scheme which we have introduced is not perfect. Can he say that when he was Minister of Agriculture he anticipated the harvests? Did he plan for the future? [Horn. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Has he not learned by experience, and would he not do differently if he had his chance over again? Of course, nobody in the Government would say that a scheme of this kind, which has never been devised before, could be perfect. There may have to he adjustments. We shall watch the working of it very closely, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that adjustments will be made if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Soviet Union had been asked to make their contribution to the world food supply. I want to assure him that they have been asked time after time to join the Combined Food Board. He should have told the House how he would have brought pressure to bear on a sovereign State.
Now I come to the speech—[Interruption]. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was quiet when he spoke. It is not always the women who interrupt. I must now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I listened to and watched his boyish enthusiasm, and I was amazed to hear him say that the women and children were going to be sacrificed to the manual worker. He also said that there had so far been no differential ration. That is absolutely wrong. At the moment the poor children of this country receive as much milk as the rich, for the first time in history.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Lady said "for the first time in history." Might I remind her that when the last Government were in power the same principle was approved?

Dr. Summerskill: Fortunately for this country, the last Government was not purely Conservative.

Mr. Butler: I would remind the hon. Lady that while I was much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for much assistance, I was responsible for the policy at the Ministry of Education for giving milk and meals to the children. And, while I was greatly helped by the right hon. Gentleman, he was Labour and I was Conservative.

Dr. Summerskill: I followed the right hon. Gentleman's efforts because I was interested in his Education Bill, but I believe we had to go a little higher than his Ministry in order to introduce this reform, and I am told by well informed people that he needed a little pushing. The hon. Member for Oxford must realise that although the meat ration in his family is 1s. 2d. a head, the industrial workers in the country, of course, get extra meat, and other workers get extra cheese. Then there are the welfare foods for children, and I feel that he, as a new father, should make inquiries into those.
I must address myself to this question of the housewife. I have been amazed to find so many hon. Members opposite interested in the welfare of the housewife. I sat for many years on the benches opposite and day after day I raised questions relating to women, but generally I addressed empty benches opposite. Now I find new champions who are exploiting the housewife. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were so interested in the working housewife, at least, they might have seen to it that one working housewife was returned to those benches.

Mr.Osborne: Mr.Osborne (Louth)
rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak unless the hon. Lady gives way.

Dr. Summerskill: I want to mention the speech of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He raised the question of manual workers. Many hon. Members feel that manual workers should be given bigger rations.
I want to assure my friends behind me that the rations allocated to the manual workers are determined by the Food Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress. We asked them to help and advise us on this question. Regarding the question of eating out, it has been said time after time that only 9 per cent. of rationed foodstuffs are used in catering establishments; and catering establishments include not simply the Ritz, the Savoy and Claridges, but industrial canteens, and school meal services, and we feel that by depriving these people of meals they do not need we should at the same time penalise the workers.
The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) had something to say for the bakers. We recognise, of course, that the bakers make a very important contribution, but she must not underestimate the intelligence of the bakers. The average baker has as much intelligence as the grocer or the butcher. In the past the average grocer or butcher probably said, "We shall never manage this rationing." They have done, and have done it very well. I am quite convinced that the bakers also will in time manage to understand our fairly simple rationing scheme. The noble Lady said she has to queue for cakes. Of course she has to queue for cakes. These are things which are not rationed and queues very often form for them. I do not think she has ever had to queue for her meat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—and most of the hon. Members opposite have never had to queue. If they will examine the queues as they pass down the streets, they will find the longest queues are outside the shops which are selling unrationed foodstuffs.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). It was careful and knowledgeable. He had obviously studied his subject. He asked why we could not ration flour for cakes. It is very difficult to differentiate because bakers might use for cakes flour which was intended for bread, and therefore we had to ration both flour and cakes. He asked for detailed figures for agricultural workers, and I will certainly let him have them. He also asked what we did with waste bread. I might remind the House that it is used for manufacturing purposes, and sausages have some bread in them.
I welcomed the contribution from the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin). He gave an interesting exposition of the metabolism of the body. One hon. Member suggested that the physique of the Minister of Agriculture indicated that he was under nourished. I can assure the hon. Member the right hon. Gentleman's catabolic rate is quite normal.
In reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), we recognise that in Northern Ireland a contribution was made to this problem, but the reason why we feel that we should not ration flour in this country as they have done in Northern Ireland, is because in Northern Ireland flour is rationed at the source. We want to ensure that every individual is getting bread and cake according to his or her need.

Sir R. Ross: All I asked was, would the hon. Lady continue in Northern Ireland the system of rationing at source we have had up to the present time for an experimental period I was not suggesting the introduction of that system into this country straight away, but only if it is found as great a success as it is in Northern Ireland. This system, to which we are accustomed, has worked well. I do not ask for an answer tonight. But will the hon. Lady look into it?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there would be some black marketing if the system were adopted. We want to ensure that everybody, irrespective of his income, has a certain ration. The hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) asked if we could supply more packed meals. We are trying to do that as far as possible, but we only do it where there is not a canteen available. If there is a canteen available, the worker is expected to use it. She also asked us to bring more pressure to hear on the Postmaster-General. Well, I went round the world with him in 1944, and I did Dot find him responsive to pressure. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!") The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), in his peroration, said the Minister was quite right in being prepared, and yet he was going to vote against him in the Lobby.

Mr. Beechman: I said it was quite right, but that I was going to vote against him for imposing rationing now, at this moment.

Dr. Summerskill: Surely, the hon. Gentleman listened very carefully to the Minister. The Minister told the House that it was no good waiting until the danger point had been reached. If we are to be prepared, we must do it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We are not prepared to wait until it is too late. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the figures."] I have already pointed out, in answer to the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead, that there are no long queues outside the shops that sell rationed foods. The contribution of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), I am sure, was welcomed by everybody. It is interesting to hear somebody speak in this House who knows his subject thoroughly, and we always enjoy that. He asked why the Government did not conduct a campaign against waste. We have been conducting a campaign against waste over a long period. I may say that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) asked more or less the same question. He asked why people could not be encouraged to save bread instead of introducing a scheme of this kind.

Mr. Duthie: I did not mention "campaign." I mentioned "crusade," which is a totally different thing.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member had looked at the hoardings he would have seen a figure holding up a sword. [HON. MEMBERS: "A bread knife."] Those who have not seen the hoardings have, I expect, seen the plates in restaurants which, in spite of our publicity, have had broken rolls of bread on them. Obviously, we could not go on like that. The hon. Member for Banff said that the bakers had not been consulted. The bakers were consulted, but we could not go to them—or to any other group—and say, "Will you make our decision for us? "Having consulted the interested parties, the Government had to make up their mind whether they would, or would not, ration bread. Here, I would like to pay a tribute to the Scottish bakers, who have supported us.
We are hoping that we shall make the people of this country bread conscious. Those who still take bread with their meals, and who do not need it, and those who thoughtlessly give bread to animals, will realise that it is essential to economise in bread. We have taken this step with full responsibility. I believe that our people like to know the truth. In this

we are emulating the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford who in the dark days of the war, often with the guns sounding overhead, used to say, "I have bad news, but I believe the people should be told the truth because they can face it." We believe that that is the right approach. Unfortunately, we see tonight an Opposition which has revealed a reckless approach to this very serious matter, and which has shown to the whole country a willingness to gamble with the bread of the people. I ask the House to vote against the Motion.

11.24 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary is under an astonishing delusion if she thinks that the critics of her Ministry, or the Government, over the last few months, have been entreating the Government not to tell the people of this country the truth. I wish to concentrate, for a short time, almost entirely on what seems to me the essential and most important question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition when he opened the Debate this evening, and to which we have not had a sufficient and satisfactory reply. That question is not whether a rationing system is necessary, but whether there is a sufficient reason—and if so what—not, for preparing a system and having it ready, but for bringing it into operation on the eve of the harvests of the world, on 21st July instead of the very short time afterwards, when we shall not, indeed, have ready for consumption our harvest or the American or Canadian harvests, but when we shall know what those harvests are and can judge, as it is impossible for anyone to judge certainly at this moment, whether or not the general wheat position for the next crop year will be such as to make bread rationing imperative. The Minister has given some reply to that question. I do not think it is a sufficient or a satisfactory reply.
What has he said? First of all, he reassured us on the point of anxiety which I think was in most of our minds, namely, that the estimate he gave us a fortnight ago as to what would be the position at the end of August had perhaps already proved to be over-optimistic. On the contrary, he confirmed his view that there will he in this country, on 31st August, 800,000 tons. It is now


18th July, and if at this date he is confident that there will be that quantity in this country, it is a pretty sure thing that there will be 800,000 tons. What is the point at which there would be a breakdown in distribution? He told us, in the same Debate, that it would be, not at 800,000 tons, but at some lower figure. He could not say exactly what.
Bearing that in mind, let us look at this question as to what the reason is for bringing the scheme into operation on 21st July. Between 21st July and the time at which he will know the harvests of this country and of the two most important exporting countries, America and Canada —not, of course, Australia and the Argentine—how much will he save by the new rationing scheme? The Leader of the Opposition suggested the figure of 40,000 tons. He said that he was taking that on the most generous view and interpretation of the Minister's own figure. I agree that it is a very generous view. I should like to ask the Minister whether he really thinks that he will save as much as 30,000 tons in those five weeks? I doubt it. Let it be remembered that even if he saves 30,000 tons, that is a saving of wheat and flour, and not a net saving of food. He will lose something on the exchange of B.U's. by the better-to-do classes for coupons which they will use for other forms of food. But let us take 30,000 tons. That is what he will save, perhaps, by taking this step before he knows the most essential factors in the problem.
What are 30,000 tons in relation to this problem? It is obvious that it is not related to the problem of the next crop year. It is an insignificant quantity in relation to the consumption of a year. It is something like one-half of one per cent. It is not for that reason. The sole reason, I suggest, is that the Minister is afraid of the intervening period. What is that intervening period? It is not between now and 31st August, because he has confirmed his view that there will be 800,000 tons on 31st August. It is, obviously, not from 1st October onwards, because it is quite clear that there will be enough from our harvest to go on for a considerable time after that. The period of danger, therefore, from this point of view, is solely the month of September.
Now, what is the position in the month of September? He will need for con-

sumption 400,000 tons in that month. He is going to have 250,000 tons from the English harvest. He is also getting whatever may be the difference between 800,000 tons and the lower figure at which, alone, actual shortages due to distribution would take place. But, suppose there is no margin at all—and there is obviously some—he needs to get, not necessarily from Canada but from other parts of the world, amounts which will enable him to see into this country in September, 150,000 tons. Is it solely because he does not feel that he can rely on that 150,000 tons in September that he is taking this terrific gamble by bringing this most complicated, this most inconvenient and harassing form of rationing into force at the most inconvenient season of the year when holidays are taking place? Is he doing all this because of this one point? Is he doing this in circumstances in which he has led us to believe it is not only possible, but probable, that when he does know the full results of the harvests—which so far have been developing well—bread rationing will not be required? Is it impossible for him to get in 150,000 tons extra from all sources—150,000. tons extra above the 250,000 tons which he will get from our own harvests?
Has he nothing arranged? I can only say I wish I were speaking before, and not after him, so that I could have pressed him to reply. I need not emphasise the enormous advantage to the country if he could have refrained from imposing this scheme for just four or five weeks, which is the period before he will know the results of the harvests. I do not, for one moment, suggest that the Government have brought in this rationing scheme for love of control. No Government would have introduced this unless they thought the situation required it. But, if the system is once in operation, and then, in a couple of months or so, the situation is such that the scheme need not have been brought into operation, I am not so sure that the Government will see to it that the bread rationing scheme is taken off.

Mr. Strachey: I can give the answer very readily indeed. The very moment the situation is such that I think it is wise to advise my colleagues it is safe to remove it, then it will be removed.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the Minister publish figures?

Sir A. Salter: I wonder if there were no rationing of tea at this moment, whether tea stocks are in such a serious condition, that he would introduce tea rationing at this time. I say that once bread rationing is introduced it is more likely to be continued. I am quite sure that it there were now no petrol rationing, and the situation of petrol were now what it now is, no Minister would now introduce petrol rationing. But there is a staff running, and it would be rather inconvenient to get rid of them at once. There are other considerations not originally considered, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's considerations and others. I am not at all too confident that if this rationing system is now introduced, and if in two months the situation is such that it would not be necessary, it would be taken off.

Mr. Edward Porter: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister, he has given a definite reply, and now he does not believe him.

Sir A. Salter: I am quite sure, and accept the Minister's assurance, that if he is convinced that bread rationing is not necessary in, say, a couple of months' time, he will be in favour of taking it off: but if rationing is already in operation, I feel that he will look at the facts a little differently.

Mr. Porter: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell him that he does not believe him?

Sir A. Salter: We have to form a discretionary judgment on the facts before us and our judgments are to some extent always affected by more than the bare figures of the case. I have put my case, and I do not propose to labour it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: It will be within the knowledge of most Members of the House that the right hon. Gentleman has for a long time advocated sending more help to the people of Europe. If action had been taken on those lines he will surely admit that bread rationing would have been necessary even before now.

Sir A. Salter: The hon. Member has intervened at the precise moment at which I was about to say—and I ask the House to believe this—that I do not

associate myself with any reproaches against the Government for having acquiesced in any excessive allocation of wheat to the distressed areas of Europe.

Miss Lee: That is pure sophistry. It would be worth while to save even a single half crust in view of the representations the right hon. Gentleman has made to this House.

Sir A. Salter: Introducing bread rationing on 21st July will not have the effect of making it possible for us to increase the ration in Germany from 1,000 or so calories to 1,500 calories. If I thought that the rationing was going to have any reference to that question, I would not for a moment be questioning, as I am questioning, the suitability of the date. But my point is not that the ration should not be introduced, but that far more consideration should have been given to whether, for the sake of possibly 30,000 tons, rationing should be introduced on 21st July rather than five weeks or so later when the harvest will be known.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is it not a fact that, had the advice of the right hon. Member been taken during the months gone by, it would have been necessary for the Government to introduce this bread rationing scheme even earlier? It is within the knowledge of every Member of this House that the right hon. Gentleman has continually pressed, as I myself have also done, for the sending of as much foodstuffs as possible to the Continent, especially Germany.

Sir A. Salter: If my advice had been taken and the facts about the food situation had been published, and this country and the world forewarned when the situation was becoming serious, the economies in other parts of the world and their allocations would have been immensely greater, not only by the 30,000 tons which is now in question, but by 300,000 tons or more which is all that rationing will save, not in four or five weeks, but in a year. Secondly, if, as a result of extra allocation from this country, in the absence of allocations from other countries, our stocks were so reduced that bread rationing was necessary, then certainly I should have supported it.

Mr. Blackburn: I do want to say, as a matter of honesty, that I know the right hon. Gentleman did ask to know what


the stocks were, and the policy which he advocated with regard to Europe was conditional upon a certain view with regard to these stocks and the assumption he was making.

Sir A. Salter: There is nothing which I have said in the past that I depart from in the least, or which is inconsistent with the limited point which I am making as to the desirability of putting this scheme into operation on 21st July as against a month or so later when the new harvests will be known.
I want to say a little on other aspects of this matter. Granting that a scheme of rationing is required to be prepared, as I do grant I do not think that this one is as skilful or as simple or as fair as it could reasonably be. I do not think that it has been skilfully handled in its relation either to the public or to the trade chiefly concerned in the application of the scheme. I think that much of the exceptional and unusual sensitiveness of Members opposite is due to the fact that in their hearts they are uneasy. I thought that the last Debate was handicapped for two reasons. First of all, the inadequacy of information. I still make that complaint. I had hoped that the Minister, who made a good start and came with a good record, would have got along a great deal further and faster in giving the information we want now and shall want as we continue to watch the food problems during the next few months. I pressed the right hon. Gentleman strongly last time as to when he was going to give us the amended edition of the White Paper on food which was promised us as long ago as February, and which even his predecessor, whom we always thought very reluctant indeed to give information, indicated would be issued in a revised edition in July.
The White Paper itself, published as long ago as April, was very defective and is long out of date. Now it is 18th July, and we have not had the new edition of the White Paper, although the Minister, in his reply, expressed very strong sympathy with my argument on 3rd July. I sincerely trust he is going to give us this amended edition, and make it a monthly edition, and keep continually up-to-date a balance sheet of supplies and consumption. We want to know—we do not know at present—what he has planned in the

way of imports in September. We do not know what arrangements he has made for later months. We want that information in order to be able to judge on these food questions as they arise. We want the Government's view month by month as to what in succeeding months they contemplate they will be drawing in from home supplies and imports and, on the other hand, what will be needed for consumption at home and for export to the Continent. I trust the Minister will be able to made a rapid step forward in this direction.
The other complaint I made in our last Debate was that when we were charging the Government with reticence and lack of foresight they put as their representative in the dock the only Minister of Cabinet rank who was then innocent. The Minister has now qualified himself for the position which I then thought was unsuitable for him. He has perhaps not gone very far at present, but in handling this question, I think he has gone some little distance towards digging his grave. He can, however, still disqualify himself for occupying it. And since he can only do so by action which is in the public interest I sincerely hope that he will.

11.47 p.m.

Mrs. Wills: I never thought I should live to hear a speech by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) similar to that which I have just heard. I used to think he was a man who would share his last crust with anyone who had no crust at all. I very much doubt that after the speech he has made tonight. It put me in mind of the woman who promises to her neighbour some jam if she has got any left—not today, not tomorrow, but when she has got some left, and the day never comes when there is any left. For a good many years I have been connected with the Co-operative movement. That movement is one in which the customer is the owner of the business. The customer, in effect the housewife, says what shall he done and what policy the management shall follow. They have said in no uncertain manner that if bread is to be short then bread should be rationed so that we should all have our fair share. In the Co-operative movement we are willing to share our crust with the rest of the community. We say to the Minister, "This is the only way in which you can guaran-


tee to safeguard our housewives from queues."
As has been said earlier, we do not have to queue for things that are rationed. We queue for cakes but they are not rationed. Why do we queue for them? It is because immediately the portion allowed to our shops arrives in the morning, the queue absorbs the whole lot and anyone who cannot queue at that time does not get any cakes. When thïngs are rationed we can go in the morning or afternoon, just as we wish, and we can get our share of all the things available. I contend this is a great advantage to the housewife, particularly the housewife with young children who cannot run off early in the morning and stand in queues for hours. She has to attend to her children, to wash a sick child, nurse him and dress him. It is important if fair shares of bread are to be obtained that we should have an Order like this which will enable everyone to get their ration.
As regards registering, it is possible for the housewife to do this. She can deposit her coupons with her regular baker which will, in effect, guarantee that her share of broad will be in the shop when she likes to call for it, or, if it is delivered by van, that the vanman will bring the bread every day in the future as he has in the past. Therefore, there is no difficulty about that. The housewife who is going away on holiday will be able to take her units with her and spend them where she likes. That will have the advantage during the holiday season of permitting her to go where she pleases without having to get transferred from a baker with whom she is registered to another. While she will lose slightly in one way, she will gain in another.
We have had suggestions from hon. Members opposite that the baker should be rationed with the flour he can have and the bread he can bake. If that were done, we should be in exactly the same position as we are at present in regard to cakes. There would be long queues in the morning when the bread arrived, and some people would have to go away empty handed and dissatisfied to find another shop where they could get something. That is what would happen if we rationed the baker and not the customer. In our opinion, the rationing of the customer is by far the easiest way of guaranteeing, a fair share for all.
With regard to bakers having to introduce a rationing system, they can thank their lucky stars, at any rate, that they did not have to do this until they had some of their employees back. They have not had to go through very hard times. Nobody likes rationing and nobody would put it into operation unless it was necessary. I have never heard of a housewife rationing her family when the pantry is empty; she starts to ration them when there is something to ration. The Minister of Food is wise to ration us while there is still something to ration. This is a sensible scheme, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, it car: be modified as we go along. No scheme is perfect from the beginning. I strongly commend this scheme to the House, and I would urge the bakers to do their best with it because I believe that our attitude towards it will make us leaders in world moral opinion. We as a nation are ready to give the world a lead, and I believe that our moral standard will stand nigh if we do this thing rather than if we emulate the mad fight that is going on in some of the wealthier and better fed nations of the world. I believe we can stand up and say that we took the right way. We are taking the hard road, possibly, hut it is the right road. If we hitch our wagon to a star we shall get through eventually.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I do not think that any hon. Member opposite would accuse me of being unfriendly to the Government or of being influenced in any way by party considerations of any kind in any views I express or in any vote I give. I have listened to practically all the speeches which have been made tonight and I say, with a full sense of responsibility, that I believe the Government are mistaken in their policy and that, even at this late hour, they would be wise to pause. The issue is not whether there should be a saving in the consumption of bread in this country—everybody by now is convinced that that is necessary—but those of us who oppose the Government's policy on rationing do so because we are not convinced that rationing is the right way to bring about that saving; we do not believe that we would secure a bigger saving by rationing than by not rationing. Rationing has been a success in this country hitherto because the


country has been convinced that it was necessary, and that it was the only way to secure the end in view. The country is not at the moment convinced about bread rationing. Hitherto the country has always been willing to work every rationing scheme that has been introduced, but quite clearly large sections are not willing to work this scheme. I ask the Government not to delude themselves into thinking that the opposition to their proposals is due mainly to party or Press agitation. I am not influenced by either of those factors, and I know that in my own constituency no kind of party pressure has been brought to bear. Yet the feeling against the bread rationing scheme is extremely strong there.
Housewives are opposed to bread rationing because they think that it is, in reality, the last straw. After all, the housewives of this country have had to put up with quite a lot during the past six years, and they are not convinced that this proverbial last straw which breaks the camel's back is a necessary burden which should be imposed on them. Neither is the opposition of the bakers to the scheme due to party agitation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know the bakers in my constituency; I also know which people are associated with party organisations, and, so far as I know, not one of the bakers is actively associated with any party organisation. I have no reason to love the Conservatives in my constituency, but, so far as I know, not one of their leaders has associated himself with this agitation. In my constituency there has been a very great saving in bread consumption since the small loaf was introduced. These are the official figures which were given by the bakers in Cheltenham. For the eight-week period from 4th May to 29th June, the saving has been between 10 and 12½ per cent. If that has been possible in Cheltenham, it seems to me that a comparable saving could be made elsewhere. This country has never failed to respond to a voluntary appeal to make sacrifices. The people know now that the alternative to voluntary saving is compulsory rationing which they do not want.
The bakers do not want it because they are convinced that they will not get the staffs to work it. I am told that in some instances vanmen have already given

notice. The bakers are finding it extremely difficult under present conditions to retain their staffs. The danger is that this schema will break down, and if this rationing scheme is a failure conditions will be worse that if it is not introduced. I am well aware that whatever the action the Government may take, there is a risk. In my view, they are taking the bigger risk in proposing to ration bread when the country is opposed to it. I believe that by so doing they are endangering the whole rationing system of this country. This has worked well—better than in any other country in the world—because it has had popular support behind it but I believe the Minister is endangering it. I recognise his courage over this matter but courage is not the same as wisdom.
There is no real difference of opinion between those who support this proposal and those who are against it as to the ends. The difference is with regard to the means. I ask the Minister to remember what happened during the war when there was a proposal to ration gas and electricity. It was pointed out that this would involve serious difficulties and the appointment of a large number of additional staff. An appeal was then made to give voluntary effort a trial. Everybody knowing that the alternative was rationing. The result was that a greater increase in saving was achieved by voluntary effort than would have been if rationing had been accepted. I believe now that if the Government would make an appeal to the nation it would be successful. Let them not be deterred, even at this late hour, from saying they will postpone the scheme and give the voluntary appeal one more chance. With All respect to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary the voluntary campaign carried on hitherto has not really been equal to the needs of the occasion. The situation is now entirely different and I believe the response would be quite different. I ask the Government not to be deterred by fear of losing prestige if they give way. Given a little time there will be an opportunity of evolving a better scheme. I believe that if an appeal were made now to save bread it would have a satisfactory response. Therefore, I say to the Government, "Do not be deterred by fear of loss of prestige; you will gain more prestige if you postpone rationing."

12.2 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Mr. R. J. Taylorrose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Qustion be new put."

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 151.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[12.2 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lang, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lavers, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Durbin, E. F, M.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dye, S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Allighan, Garry
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Leonard, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Edelman, M.
Levy, B. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Austin, H. L.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.


Baird, Capt. J.
Fairhurst F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Battley, J. R.
Follick, M
McNeil, H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foot, M. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Belcher, J. W.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Manning, C. (Camberwall, N.)


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Berry, H.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Marquand, H. A.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E, (Wandsworyh, C.)
Ganley, Mrs. C, S.
Marshall F. (Brightside)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.


Binns, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gilzean, A.
Medland, H. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Goodrich, H. E.
Messer, F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Grey, C. F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Montague, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Morley, R.


Buchanan, G.
Guy, W. H.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Burden, T. W.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Butler, H. W. {Hackney, S.)
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)


Callaghan, James
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Moyle, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Murray J. D.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Champion. A, J.
Hardman, D. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Chater, D.
Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Clitherow, Dr R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Cobb, F. A.
Haworth, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
O'Brien, T.


Coldrick, W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oldfield, W. H.


Collick, P.
Hicks, G.
Orbach, M.


Collindridge, F.
Hobson, C. R
Paget, R. T.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cook, T. F.
Horabin, T. L.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hubbard, T.
Pargiter, G. A


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parker, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayr)
Parkin, B. T.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Crawley, A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pearson, A.


Cripps, Rt, Hon. Sir S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, W. J.
Perrins, W.


Daggar, G
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Piratin, P.


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Platts-Mills, J. F F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, J. K. (Bolton)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pritt, D. N.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kendall, W. D.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.


Diamond, J.
Key, C. W
Ranger, J.


Dobbje, W.
King, E. M.
Rees-Williams, D R.


Dodds, H. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.
Reeves, J.


Donovan, T.
Kinley, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dribers, T. E. N.
Kirby, B. V.
Richards, R.




Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Strachey, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Robens, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Summarskill, Dr. Edith
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Swingler, S.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C, A. B.


Sargoad, R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wilkes, L.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shawcross, C. M. (Widnes)
Thomas, John B. (Dover)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Simmons, G. J.
Tiffany, S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Skeffington, A. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Williamson, T.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Tolley, L.
Willis, E.


Skinnard, F. W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Han. G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, At. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilson, J. H.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Usborne, Henry
Wise, Major F. J.


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Woodburn A.


Snow, Capt. J. W
Walkden, E.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Solley, L J.
Walker, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sparks, J. A
Warbey, W. N,
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Robert


Stamford, W.
Watkins, T. E.
Taylor.


Stewart. Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.





NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. O.
Prescott, Stanley


Baxter, A. B.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Jennings, R.
Ross, Sir R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jonynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Byers, Frank F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smiles, Ll.-Col. Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cole, T. L.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Unlv.)
Snadden, W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutclifle, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, William


Digby, S. W.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon.. H. (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Marshall. D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, F.
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col, A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Mcseley)
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.



Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Thornton -Kemsley and


Haughton, S. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Drayson.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Oshorne, C.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is ——

Mr. W. J. Brown: Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby) rose——

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be a point of Order now. I have been ordered by the House to put the Question forthwith.

Mr. Brown: I want to protest now against the acceptance of the Motion for the Closure——

Mr. Speaker: If it had not been so late at night, I would have ordered the hon. Member to retire from the Chamber. My decision has now been confirmed by the House.

Question put accordingly,
That the Bread (Rationing) Order, 1946, dated 12th July, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1100), a copy of which was presented on 15th July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 305.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[12.16 a.m.


Ailken, Hon. Max
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Osborne, C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Carthcart)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott, Stanley


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beech man, N. A.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Brown, W. J, (Rugby)
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, T. L.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Studholme, H G.


Cornell, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor,'C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n. S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col, Sir C.
Teeling, William


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


De la Bère, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marshall, D, (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maude, J. C.
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Medlicott, F.
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Molson, A. H. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gage, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
York, C.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Gomme-Duncan, Col, A. G.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. James Stuart and


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bacon, Miss A.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Attewell, H. C.
Baird, Capt. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J,


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Austin, H. L.
Barstow, P. G.


Allighan, Garry
Awbery, S. S.
Battley, J. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bechervaise, A. E.




Belcher, J. W.
Goodrich, H. E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bellenger. F. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Benson, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Hoywood)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Berry, H.
Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Grierson, E.
Murray, J. D.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.


Binns J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Blackburn, A. B.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Blenkinsop A.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bottomeley, A. G.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
O'Brien, T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Oldfield, W. H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paget, R. T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardman, D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Buchanan, G.
Harrison, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Burden, T. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler H. W. (Hackney S.)
Haworth, J.
Parker, J.


Buyers, Frank F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkin, B. T.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hicks, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Chamberlain R A.
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Champion. A. J.
Holman, P.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Chater D.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Perrins, W.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Piratin, P.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hubbard, T.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Cobb, F. A.
Hudson, H. H. (Ealling, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen. N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Collick P.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Collindridge, F.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pritt. D. N.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C,)
Proctor, W. T.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Irving, W. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cook, T. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Corbert, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reeves, J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Crawley, A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


Crosssman, R. H. S.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Daggar, G.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Daines, P.
Key, C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, E. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinley, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kirby, B. V.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lang, G.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)


Deer, G.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Leonard, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Diamond, J.
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dobble, W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Denovan T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G, S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, Capt. J. W


Dye, S.
Mack, J. D.
Solley, L. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McNeil, H.
Stamford, W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson T. (Romford)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitichapel)
Mallalieu, J P W.
Strachey, J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Marquand, H. A.
Swingler, S.


Ewart, R.
Marshall F. (Brightside)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fairhurst F.
Mathers, G.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Farthing, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Foot, M. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, E.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Tiffany, S.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Titterington, M. F.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Tolley, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Montague, F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.
Ungoed-Thomas. L.




Usborne, Henry
Wilkes, L.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Walkden, E.
Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, J. H.


Walker, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sanderland)
Wise, Major F. J.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Woodburn. A.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Warbey, W. N.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Yates, V. F.


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williamson, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Willis, E.
Mr. Whilteley and Mr. Rober


Wigg, Colonel G. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Taylor.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Joseph Henderson.)

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Twelve o' Clock.